{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32016/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32016","id":"gutenberg_32016","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32016","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Ephesians -- Commentaries","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_St. Paul's_\n\n_Epistle to the Ephesians_\n\n\n_A Practical Exposition_\n\n\nBY THE\n\nRIGHT REV. CHARLES GORE, M.A., D.D.\n\nLORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER\n\n\n\n\nFIFTH IMPRESSION\n\nTWELFTH THOUSAND\n\n\n\n\nLONDON\n\nJOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET\n\n1902\n\n\n\n\n_A Series of Simple Expositions_\n\n_of_\n\n_Portions of the New Testament_\n\n\nBY THE\n\nRIGHT REV. DR. GORE.\n\n\nTHE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.            _Crown 8vo_, 3/6.\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.       _Crown 8vo_, 3/6.\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.          2 _Vols., Crown 8vo_, 3/6 _each_.\n\n\n\n\nOxford\n\nHORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nJAMES L. HOUGHTELING\n\nOF CHICAGO\n\nTHE FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD\n\nOF ST. ANDREW\n\nAND TO ALL THE BROTHERHOOD\n\nWHICH IN MORE SENSES THAN ONE\n\nHE REPRESENTS\n\n\n\n\n{vi}\n\nPREFACE\n\nThe favourable reception accorded to an exposition of the Sermon on the\nMount has encouraged me to attempt another practical explanation of a\nportion of the New Testament, in the interest of such readers as are\nintelligent indeed, but neither are nor hope to become critical\nscholars.  An immense deal has been done of late to assist New\nTestament scholarship, but while the studies of the scholar make\nprogress, the ordinary Christian 'reading of the Bible' is, I fear, at\nbest at a standstill.  This little book then is intended to make one of\nSt. Paul's epistles as intelligible as may be to the ordinary reader,\nand so to enable him to make a practical religious use of it, 'to read,\nmark, learn and inwardly digest' it.\n\n{viii}\n\nThe method pursued, in the main, has been to let each section of the\nepistle be preceded by an analysis or paraphrase of the teaching it\ncontains, in which it is hoped that no element in the teaching is left\nunnoticed, and followed by such further explanations of particular\nphrases, or practical reflections, as seem to be needed.\n\nI have avoided as far as possible all discussion of rival views, and\ngiven simply what are, in my judgement, the best explanations.\n\nI have ventured to dedicate this book to the President of the\nBrotherhood of St. Andrew, because (see app. note D, p. 264) that\nsociety represents surely a brave attempt to realize some of the chief\npractical lessons which this epistle is intended to enforce.\n\nCHARLES GORE.\n\nWESTMINSTER ABBEY,\n  _Christmas_, 1897.\n\n\n\n\n{ix}\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                 PAGE\n\nINTRODUCTION . . . Study of the New Testament  . . . . . . . . .    1\n                   The gospel of the Catholic Church . . . . . .    6\n                   The Roman Empire  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20\n                   Ephesus and the Ephesians . . . . . . . . . .   34\n                   The letter--to whom written . . . . . . . . .   43\n\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.\n\n  SALUTATION (i. 1-2)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   48\n\n  DIVISION I (i. 3-iv. 17)\n\n    Sec. 1 (i. 3-14)   St. Paul's leading thoughts:\n                         life in Christ  . . . . . . . . . . . .   54\n                         predestination  . . . . . . . . . . . .   63\n                         the elect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   69\n                         the divine secret disclosed . . . . . .   72\n                         grace not merit . . . . . . . . . . . .   74\n\n    Sec. 2 (i. 15-23)  St. Paul's prayer . . . . . . . . . . . .   78\n\n    Sec. 3 (ii. 1-10)  Sin and redemption  . . . . . . . . . . .   89\n\n    Sec. 4 (ii. 11-22) Salvation in the Church . . . . . . . . .  102\n\n    Sec. 5 (iii)       Paul the apostle of catholicity . . . . .  121\n                         his second prayer . . . . . . . . . . .  133\n\n    Sec. 6 (iv. 1-16)  The unity of the Church . . . . . . . . .  140\n\n\n{x}\n\nDIVISION II (iv. 17-vi. 24):\n\n                       Doctrine and conduct  . . . . . . . . . .  172\n\n    Sec. 1 (iv. 17-24) Christianity a new life . . . . . . . . .  178\n\n    Sec. 2 (iv. 25-32) The new life a corporate life . . . . . .  184\n\n    Sec. 3 (v. 1-14)   The new life an imitation of God  . . . .  192\n                         and a life in the light . . . . . . . .  194\n\n    Sec. 4 (v. 15-21)  The new life a buying up of an\n                         opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  204\n\n    Sec. 5 (v. 22-vi. 9)  The law of subordination and authority  211\n                         husbands and wives (v. 22-33) . . . . .  212\n                         parents and children (vi. 1-4)  . . . .  228\n                         masters and slaves (vi. 5-9)  . . . . .  233\n\n    Sec. 6 (vi. 10-20) The personal spiritual struggle . . . . .  237\n\nCONCLUSION (vi. 21-24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  248\n\n\nAPPENDED NOTES:--\n\n  A. The Roman Empire recognized by Christians as a\n       Divine Preparation for the Spread of the Gospel . . . . .  251\n\n  B. The (so-called) 'Letters of Heracleitus'  . . . . . . . . .  253\n\n  C. The Jewish Doctrine of Works in _The Apocalypse of Baruch_   257\n\n  D. The Brotherhood of St. Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  264\n\n  E. The Conception of the Church Catholic in St. Paul in\n       its Relation to Local Churches  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  267\n\n  F. The Ethics of Catholicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  271\n\n  G. The Lambeth Conference and Industrial Problems  . . . . . .  274\n\n\n\n\n{1}\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS\n\n\n_Introduction._\n\ni.\n\n[Sidenote: _Introduction_]\n\nThere are two great rivers of Europe which, in their course, offer a\nnot uninstructive analogy to the Church of God.  The Rhine and the\nRhone both take their rise from mountain glaciers, and for the first\nhundred or hundred and fifty miles from their sources they run turbid\nas glacier streams always are, and for the most part turbulent as\nmountain torrents.  Then they enter the great lakes of Constance and\nGeneva.  There, as in vast settling-vats, they deposit all the\ndiscolouring elements which have hitherto defiled their waters, so that\nwhen they re-emerge from the western ends of the lakes to run their\ncourses in central and southern Europe their {2} waters have a\ntranslucent purity altogether delightful to contemplate.  After this\nthe two rivers have very different destinies, but either from fouler\naffluents or from the commercial activity upon their surfaces or along\ntheir banks they lose the purity which characterized their second\nbirth, and become as foul as ever they were among their earlier\nmountain fastnesses; till after all vicissitudes they lose themselves\nto north or south in the vast and cleansing sea.\n\nThe history of these rivers offers, I say, a remarkable parallel to the\nhistory of the Church of God.  For that too takes its rude and rough\nbeginnings high up in wild and remote fastnesses of our human history.\nSuch books of the Old Testament as those of Judges and Samuel and Kings\nrepresent the turbid and turbulent running of this human nature of\nours, divinely directed indeed, but still unpurified and unregenerate.\nBut in the great lake of the humanity of Jesus all its acquired\npollution is cut off.  In Him, virgin-born, our manhood is seen as\nindeed the pure mirror of the divine glory; and when at Pentecost the\nChurch of God issues anew, by a second birth of that glorified manhood,\nfor its second course in this world, it issues unmixed with alien\ninfluences, substantially {3} pure and unsullied.  After a time its\nhistory gains in complexity but its character loses in purity, so that\nthere are epochs of the history of the Church when its moral level is\npossibly not higher than that which is represented in the roughest\nbooks of the Old Testament: and through the whole of its later history\nthe Church is strangely fused with the world again, until they issue\nboth together into eternity.\n\nMen from all parts of the world visit Constance and Geneva, and delight\nto look at the two famous rivers issuing pure and abundant from the\nquiet lakes.  An analogous pleasure belongs to the study of such books\nof the New Testament as the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul's Epistle\nto the Ephesians, which give us respectively the fortunes and the\ntheory of the Church at its origin.  Later epochs of Church history\nhave possibly more richly diversified interests--such as the period of\nthe Councils, or the Middle Ages, or the Reformation.  But the interest\nof the earliest Church unmixed with the world, its principles fresh,\nits inspirations strong, its native hue free from discolouring\nelements, preoccupies us with a fascination which is unrivalled.  The\ndivine society is young and inexperienced, but what it is and is meant\n{4} to be we can see there better than anywhere else.  We return, when\nour minds are aching and our eyes are dim with the complexity and\nobscurity of our latter-day problem, to learn insight and simplicity\nagain at those pure sources.\n\nAnd to the Christian believer these books are not only documents of\ngreat historical importance as illustrative of a unique period: they\nalso represent to us in different forms the highest level of that\naction of the divine Spirit upon the mind of man which we call\ninspiration.  St. Paul for instance, in this Epistle to the Ephesians\nclaims, as we shall find, to be an 'inspired' man, a recipient of\ndivine revelation, and makes a similar claim for the apostles and\nprophets generally.  'By revelation,' he says, 'God made known unto me\nthe mystery (or divine secret), as I wrote afore in few words, whereby,\nwhen ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of\nChrist; which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as\nit hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the\nSpirit.'  Inspiration is a term not easily susceptible of definition.\nWe are inclined in our generation to recognize its limits more frankly\nthan has been done in the past, and {5} its compatibility even with\npositive error on subjects which are matter of ordinary human inquiry\nand not of divine revelation[1]; but its positive meaning in the region\nof divine revelation--in what concerns God's moral will, purpose,\ncharacter and being, and the consequent moral and spiritual\nsignificance of our human life--ought not to be less apparent to us\nthan formerly.  Thus when we call a writer of the New Testament\n'inspired' we must mean at least this: that the same divine Spirit who\nput the message of God in the hearts of the prophets of old, and who\nworked His perfect work without let and hindrance in the manhood of\nChrist, is here so working upon the will and imagination, the memory\nand intelligence, of one of Christ's commissioned witnesses as that he\nshall interpret and not misinterpret the mind and person of his Master.\nPractically, an inspired writer of the New Testament means a writer\nunder whom we can put ourselves to school to 'learn Christ' with {6}\nwhole-hearted confidence and faith.  This, of course, gives an\nadditional reason of the most cogent force why we should continually\nrecur to the sacred books of the New Testament.  If Christianity is to\nbe deterred from a fatal return to nature--that is to the religious or\nirreligious tendencies of mankind when left to itself--or if it is to\nbe recalled when it has lapsed, this can only be by an appeal to\nScripture constantly reiterated and pressed home.  There is for ever\nthe testing-ground alike of doctrine, of moral character, and of\necclesiastical tendency; there is the only perfect image of the mind of\nChrist.\n\n\nii.\n\nThe Epistle to the Ephesians gives us St. Paul's gospel of the Catholic\nChurch.  So far from being a man of one idea, St. Paul fascinates and\nsometimes bewilders us by the intricacy and variety of his thoughts;\nbut like the innumerable leaves and twigs of some finely-grown tree\nwhich emerge, all of them, through branches and boughs, out of one\ngreat trunk, strong and straight, and one deep and firmly-set root, so\nit is with the infinitely various topics and suggestions of St. Paul.\nThey run back {7} into a few dominant thoughts, which in their turn\nhave one trunk-line of developement and one root.  The root is the\nconviction, finally smitten into the soul of St. Paul at the moment of\nhis conversion on the road to Damascus, that Jesus is the Christ; and\nthe trunk-line of development is that which is involved in St. Paul's\nspecial commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, that is to\nsay, the principle that the Christ is the saviour of Gentiles as of\nJews and on an equal basis--or in other words, that the Christian\nchurch is catholic.\n\nWhen St. Paul acknowledged that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, this\nof course meant that he remained no less than formerly an adherent of\nthe Jewish faith, and that he 'worshipped' without any breach of\ncontinuity, 'the God of his fathers.'  So he is fond of insisting[2].\nThus to him the Church of Christ is still 'the commonwealth of Israel,'\nGod's ancient church, though reconstructed[3].  For the religion of\nIsrael had had for its main motive the hope of the Christ.  All that\nSt. Paul now believed was that this hope had been realized, and\nrealized to the shame of Israel in One whom they had rejected {8} and\ncrucified.  But if to believe that Jesus was the Christ involved no\nbreach with the religion of Israel, yet it did involve the recognition\nthat it had been reconstituted on a new basis, and in a way that\nsuggested to existing Israelites nothing less than a revolution.  The\nchurch of God had, in St. Paul's present belief, widened out from being\nthe church of one nation into being a catholic society, a society for\nall mankind.\n\nIf St. Paul's epistles are taken in those groups into which they\nnaturally divide themselves, we find that in the first group, that of\nthe two epistles to the Thessalonians, all his favourite topics are\npresent as it were in the germ, but nothing that is specially\ncharacteristic of him is yet developed.  The free admission of the\nGentiles into the Church is, with the accompanying hostility of the\nJews, assumed[4], but not much insisted upon; but in the interval\nbetween these epistles and that to the Galatians the subject had gained\nfresh and poignant interest.  A party of Christians having their centre\nat Jerusalem had been trying--in spite of the decision of the apostolic\ncouncil at Jerusalem--to reimpose upon the consciences of {9} Gentile\nChristians, and with especial success in the Galatian province, the\nobligation of circumcision; or in other words had been trying to make\nit evident that the Church of God was as much as ever the people of the\nJews, and that Gentiles could only become Christians by becoming also\nJewish proselytes pledged to keep the law of Moses.  In view of this\nattempt St. Paul re-embarks upon his great campaign for the catholicity\nof the Church, and in his epistles of the second group[5] (especially\nthose to the Galatians and the Romans) the catholicity of Christianity\nis vindicated controversially upon the basis of the principle of\n_justification by faith, not by works of the law_.\n\nThe meaning and real importance of this doctrine ought not to be hard\nfor us to understand.  To be justified means to be accepted or\nacquitted by God.  The Judaizers--that is the Christian representatives\nof the narrower religious spirit of Israel--held that, as God's\ncovenant was with the Jews only, so men could obtain acceptance simply\nby the observance of that Mosaic law which was to the Jew at once the\nexpression of the divine selection of his race, and the grounds of his\narrogant {10} contempt for all who had not 'Abraham to their\nfather[6].'  But St. Paul had made trial of that theory, and had found\nit wanting.  The observance of the law and the glorying in Jewish\nprivileges had brought him no peace with God: had in fact served only\nto produce and deepen a sense of inner alienation from God and\nconviction of sin.  Thus in acknowledging the messiahship of that Jesus\nwhom the chosen people had rejected and surrendered to be crucified, he\nwas abandoning utterly and for ever the standing-ground of Jewish\npride: he was acknowledging that the only divine function of the law\nwas to convince men of sin, and of their need of pardon and salvation:\nhe was taking his stand as a sinner among the Gentiles, and humbly\nwelcoming the unmerited boon of pardon and acceptance from the hand of\nthe divine mercy in Christ Jesus.  When St. Paul in familiar arguments,\nfrom the witness of the Old Testament itself, and from the moral\nexperience of men, convicts the law of inadequacy as an instrument of\njustification, his reasoning is full of a strong feeling and conviction\nbred of his own experiences.  The true means of justification, he has\ncome to perceive, is faith, that is, {11} the simple acceptance of the\ndivine favour freely offered, and this is something that belongs to no\nspecial race, but to all men as such.  For all men everywhere, to whom\nthe light comes, can know that they are sinners in the sight of God,\nand can accept simply from the hand of the divine bounty the unmerited\nboon of forgiveness and acceptance in Christ.  Thus, if faith and faith\nalone is that whereby men are justified or commended to God, then at\nonce the catholic basis of the reconstituted Church is secured.  All\nmen can belong to it who can feel their need and hear the Gospel and\ntake God at His word.  This is the great principle vindicated in the\ncompressed and fiery arguments of the Epistle to the Galatians, and\nthen subsequently developed in the calmer and orderly procedure of the\nEpistle to the Romans.\n\nBut in the next group of epistles, written out of that captivity at\nRome the record of which closes the Acts of the Apostles, the same\ndoctrine of the catholicity of the Church is developed from a different\npoint of view.  Now it is the thought of the person of Christ which has\ncome to occupy the foreground.  All along St. Paul had believed that\nChrist was the Son of God, the divine mediator of creation, who in\nthese {12} latter days had for our sakes humbled Himself to be made\nman[7].  But this thought of Christ's person is elaborated and brought\ninto prominence in the third group of epistles[8], especially in the\nEpistle to the Colossians.  A tendency derived from Jewish sources was\nmanifesting itself among some of the Asiatic Christians to exalt\nangelic beings, conceived probably as representing divine attributes\nand powers, into objects of religious worship[9].  There is a certain\nspurious humility which has in many ages, and not least in the\nChristian Church, led men to shrink from direct approach to the high\nand holy God and to resort to lower mediators, as more suitable to\ntheir defiled condition and weakness.  This sort of spurious humility\nwas already detected by St. Paul, in company with other Judaizing and\nfalsely ascetic tendencies, as a peril of the Asiatic churches, and\nespecially of the Colossians.\n\nBut he will make no terms with it.  Christ he teaches is the only and\nthe universal mediator, the one and only reconciler of all things to\nthe Father.  And He is this because of the {13} position that belongs\nto His person in the universe as a whole.  He, as the Father's image or\ncounterpart, is His unique agent in all the work of creation.  All\ncreated things whatever, from the lowest to the highest, seen or\nunseen, be they thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, are\nthe work of His hand.  All were created through Him and have Him for\ntheir end or goal, and He is the sustaining life of the whole universe\nin all its parts.  'In Him all things consist' or have their unity in a\nsystem.  And because He occupies this position in the whole universe,\ntherefore a similar position and sovereignty belong to Him in the\nspiritual kingdom of redemption.  There too He is, through His manhood\nand His sacrificial death upon the cross, the unique author of the\nreconciliation with God.  He is by His spirit the inherent life of the\nredeemed, and the goal of all their perfecting.  There is, in fact, no\ndivine quality, or attribute, or activity of God towards His creatures\nwhich is not His.  In Him it pleased the Father that all the fulness of\ndivine attributes and offices should dwell, and in Him as Son of God\nmade man dwells all this fulness bodily.  The divine attributes, that\nis, are not committed to a number of different mediators.  {14} They\nexist and are exercised in Him and in Him alone.  It follows therefore\nas a matter of course from this position of Christ in the universe and\nin the church that the redemption effected by Him must be universal in\nrange and must extend equally and impartially to all.  There 'cannot be\nGreek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian and Scythian,\nbond and free, but Christ is all and in all.'\n\nThus in the Epistle to the Colossians[10] the doctrine of the\ncatholicity of Christianity is again vindicated controversially, and\nlogically based upon the catholic character of Christ and upon His\nuniversal function in creation and redemption; and in the contemporary\nEpistle to the Ephesians, without note of controversy, the doctrine of\nthe catholic church, the brotherhood of all men in Christ, the doctrine\nwhich is, we may truly say, the culmination of all St. Paul's teaching,\nis allowed to develope itself in all its glory on the assumed basis of\nthat teaching about Christ's person which had made any narrower idea of\nthe church already seem incongruous and impossible.  In the earlier\ndispensation in which the covenant of God was with one people, St. Paul\ncan see only a preparatory process through {15} which the eternal\npurpose of God could at last be realized, and out of which His eternal\nsecret could at last be disclosed.  That purpose so long kept secret,\nand now revealed, is to gather together all nations and classes of men\ninto the one Church of God, one organized body, one brotherhood in\nwhich all men are to find their salvation, and through which is to be\nrealized an even wider purpose for the whole universe.  In this\ndoctrine of the catholic church St. Paul finds the expression of all\nthe length and breadth and height and depth of the divine love.  Its\nlength, for it represents an age-long purpose slowly worked out; its\nbreadth, for it is a society of all men and for the whole universe; its\ndepth, for God has reached a hand of mercy down to the lowest gulfs of\nsin and alienation from God; its height, for in this society men are\ncarried up into nothing less than union with God, to no lower seat than\nthe heavenly places in Christ.\n\nI have spoken of St. Paul's great arguments for the catholicity of the\nGospel as two.  The first appears mainly as a polemic against the idea\nof justification by works of the law.  The second as a positive\nargument about the person of Christ and the results which flow from the\nright appreciation of it.  But in fact there is {16} a necessary\nconnexion between the two.  The narrow Judaism of the Galatian\nreactionaries did in fact logically involve a narrow and therefore a\nfalse conception of the person of Christ.  As Dr. Hort expresses\nit[11], 'to accept Jesus as the Christ without any adequate enlargement\nof what was included in the Messiahship could hardly fail to involve\neither limitation of His nature to the human sphere, or at most a\ncounting Him among the angels.'  This logical connexion was in fact\nverified in history.  The Judaizers of the earliest period of Christian\nhistory who insisted on circumcision for all Christians pass into the\nEbionites of the second century who rejected the Church's doctrine of\nthe person of Christ, as the eternal Son of God.  And conversely it\nwould be scarcely possible to accept the doctrine of the universal\nChrist, both divine and human, as St. Paul developes it, without\nperceiving that men must be made acceptable to Him and to His Father by\nsomething deeper and wider than any particular set of observances or\n'works.'  The relation therefore between the argument of St. Paul's\nepistles to the Galatians and the Romans on the one side, and that of\nhis epistles to the Colossians and {17} the Ephesians on the other is\none of unity rather than of contrast.\n\nThe relation of these two groups of epistles may be expressed also in\nanother way.  The argument of the earlier epistles is directed towards\nthe Judaizers.  Its purpose is to vindicate the right of the Gentiles\nto an equal place and position with the Jews in the kingdom of God.\nBut at the time of the later group this right had been secured.  On the\nbasis of their acknowledged title the ingress of Gentiles into the\nchurches of Asia had been even alarmingly rapid.  Now it is time for\nSt. Paul to address himself to these emancipated Gentiles and to exhort\nthem in their turn not to relapse into unworthy and narrow conceptions\nof their redeemer, or into conduct unworthy of their new position: they\nmust 'walk worthily of the vocation wherewith they are called.'\n\nOur present political situation in England offers an analogy which may\nbring home to us the position of the Gentile Christians and the\nfunction of the Epistle to the Ephesians.  The time is past for us when\nthere is any necessity to contend that a vote should be given to all\nresponsible men.  So far at least as the male population is concerned,\nthe title of the citizen {18} to the vote has been substantially\nacknowledged; but the time is by no means past when the newly\nenfranchised citizens need to be stimulated to realize what their\nenfranchisement carries with it of privilege and responsibility.  And\nwe may express this by saying that if our English political Epistle to\nthe Galatians has been written and has done its work, our Epistle to\nthe Ephesians is still surely very much needed.\n\nIt is very strange, or at least would be strange if we were not\nacquainted with the historical circumstances that have accounted for\nit, that St. Paul has been, out of all proportion to the facts of the\ncase, identified in popular estimation with only the earlier of the two\ngreat arguments described above, with that which has given the basis to\nProtestantism, and not that which is, in fact, the charter of the\nCatholic Church.\n\nWe are all familiar with the fact that St. Paul taught the doctrine of\njustification by faith, and insisted therefore on the necessity and\nprivilege of personal acceptance on the part of each individual of the\npromises of God in Christ.  We all know how, when this aspect of things\nhas been ignored and over-ridden--when an almost Jewish doctrine of the\nmerit of good works[12] {19} has been current in Christendom--it has\nafforded a pretext for a Protestant reaction of the most\nindividualistic kind, of the kind which pays no regard to outward unity\nor catholic authority.  But certainly in St. Paul's own teaching there\nis nothing individualistic in justifying faith.  It is that by which\nman wins admittance into the body of Christ; and the body of Christ is\nan organized society, a catholic brotherhood.  Salvation, as we shall\nsee, is as much social or ecclesiastical as it is individual; and\nperhaps there is nothing more wanted to correct our ideas of what St.\nPaul understood by justifying faith than an impartial study of the\nEpistle to the Ephesians.  It is true that this great epistle only\nfreely developes thoughts which were already unmistakably in St. Paul's\nmind when he wrote his epistles to the Corinthians, and even those to\nthe Thessalonians.  Already the social organization of the Church is a\nprominent topic, and the ethics of Christianity are social ethics.  But\nnow, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the idea of the Church has become\nthe dominant idea, and the ethical teaching can be justly characterized\nin no other way than as a Christian socialism.\n\n\n{20}\n\niii.\n\nBut it is time to examine somewhat more closely the circumstances under\nwhich St. Paul wrote this epistle and their bearing upon its contents.\nIt was written by him during that imprisonment at Rome[13] the record\nof which brings to an end the Acts of the Apostles.  He can therefore\nput into his appeals all the force which naturally belongs to one who\nhas sacrificed himself for his principles.  'I, Paul,' he writes, 'the\nprisoner of Jesus Christ, on behalf of you Gentiles.'  He speaks of\nhimself as 'an ambassador in a chain' bound, as he was no doubt, to the\nsoldier which kept him.  But the fact that he is a prisoner does not\noccupy a great place in his mind.  In part this is because his\nimprisonment was not of a highly restrictive character.  The Acts\nconclude by telling us that he was allowed to dwell in his own hired\ndwelling and to receive all that came to him without let or hindrance\nto his preaching.  And the tone of the 'epistles of the first\ncaptivity' is cheerful as to the present and hopeful for the\nfuture[14].  But it is more important to notice that {21} the thought\nof being in prison is apparently swallowed up in St. Paul's imagination\nby other considerations.  For, in the first place, St. Paul was, under\nwhatever restraints, at Rome.  He had reached his goal--a new centre of\nevangelization which was also the centre of the world.  Step by step\nthe centre of Christian evangelization had passed toward Rome as its\ngoal.  From Jerusalem, which told unmistakably that 'the salvation was\nof the Jews,' it had moved to Antioch, where in a Greek city Jew met\nGentile on equal terms.  From Antioch, under St. Paul's leadership, it\nhad passed to Corinth and Ephesus.  These were indeed thoroughly\nGentile cities, and leading cities of the Empire, but they were\nprovincial.  No imperial movement could rest satisfied till it\nestablished itself at the centre of the great imperial\norganization--till it had got to Rome.\n\nIf we are to understand at all adequately the world in which St. Paul\nwrote, the thought of the Roman Empire and of the unity which it was\ngiving the world must be clearly before our minds: and it will not be a\ndigression if we pause to dwell upon it at this point when we are\nconsidering the significance of St. Paul's situation as at once a\nprisoner and an evangelist in the great capital.\n\n{22}\n\nThe Roman Empire brought the world, that is the whole of the known\nworld which was thought worth considering, into a great unity of\ngovernment.  What had once been independent kingdoms had now become\nprovinces of the empire, and the whole of the Roman policy was directed\ntowards drawing closer the unity, and educating the provinces in Roman\nideas[15].\n\nIf we seek to define Roman unity a little more closely the following\nelements will be found perhaps the most important for our purpose.  (1)\nIt was a unity of government strongly centralized at Rome in the person\nof the emperor.  The letters of a provincial governor like Pliny to his\nmaster Trajan at Rome reveal to us how even trivial matters, such as\nthe formation of a guild of firemen in Pliny's province of Bithynia,\nwere referred up to the emperor.  Roman government was in fact personal\nand centralized in a very complete sense, and had the uniformity which\naccompanies such a condition.  (2) This centralized personal government\nis, of course, only possible where there is a well-organized system of\ninter-communication between the widely-separated parts of a great {23}\nempire.  And there was this to an amazing extent in the Roman empire.\nWe find evidence of it in the great roads representing a highly\ndeveloped system of travelling.  'It is not too much to say that\ntravelling was more highly developed and the dividing power of distance\nwas weaker under the Empire than at any time before or since until we\ncome down to the present century.'  This is what gives such a modern\nand cosmopolitan flavour to the lives of men of the Empire as unlike\none another in other respects as Strabo and Jerome.  We find the\nevidence of such a system of inter-communication also, and not less\nimpressively, in the multiplied proofs afforded to us that every\nmovement of thought in the Empire must needs pass to Rome and establish\nitself there.  The rapid arrival of all oriental tendencies or beliefs\nat Rome was, of course, what from the point of view of conservative\nRomans meant the destruction of all that they valued in character and\nideals.  'The Orontes had poured itself into the Tiber.'  But it was\nnone the less a fact of the utmost significance for the world's\nprogress.  (3) The unity of the Empire depended largely on the use\nwhich was made of Greek civilization and Greek language.  The Empire\n{24} may be rightly described, if we are considering its eastern half,\nas Greek no less than Roman from the first.  Everywhere it was the\nGreek language which was the instrument of Roman government, and Greek\ncivilization, tempered by somewhat barbarous Roman 'games,' which was\nput into competition with local customs whether social or\nreligious[16].  (4) Lastly, to a very real extent the Empire was aiming\nat the establishment of a universal religion.  Independent local gods\nand local cults suited well enough a number of independent little\ntribes and kingdoms, but it was felt instinctively that the one empire\ninvolved also one religion, and with more or less of deliberate\nintention the one religion was provided in the worship of the emperor,\nor, perhaps we should say, of the Empire.\n\nThis worship of the emperor has been among us a very byword for what is\nmonstrous and unintelligible.  It bewilders us when we hear of\nsomething like it in our own Indian empire.  And yet a little\nimagination ought to show us that where a pure monotheism has not\ntaught men the moral purity and personal character of God--where\nreligion is either pantheism, the deification of the one life, or\nidolatry, the deification {25} of separate forms of life--the worship\nof the imperial authority is intelligible enough.  Here was a vast\npower, universal in its range, mostly beneficent, and yet awful in its\nlimitless and arbitrary power of chastisement; what should it be but\ndivine, like nature, and an object to be appealed to, propitiated,\nworshipped?  At any rate the cultus of the emperor spread in the Roman\nworld, and particularly in the Asiatic provinces.  It could ally itself\nwith the current pantheistic philosophy and also with popular local\ncults: for it was tolerant of all and could embrace them all, or in\nsome cases it could identify itself with them--the emperor being\nregarded as a special manifestation of the local god.  And it made\nitself popular through games--wild beast shows and gladiatorial\ncontests--which it was the business of its high priests or presidents\nto provide or to organize.  Thus it was that the Roman world came to be\norganized by provinces for the purposes of the imperial religion, and\nthe provincial presidents, whom we hear of in the Acts as 'Asiarchs' or\n'chiefs of Asia,' and from other sources as existing in the other\nprovinces--Galatarchs, Bithyniarchs, Syriarchs, and so on--were also\nthe high priests of the worship of the Caesars, by which it was sought\n{26} to make religion, like everything else, contribute to cement\nimperial unity[17].\n\nNow there can be no doubt at all, if we look back from the fourth or\nfifth centuries of our era, to how vast an extent this Roman unity had\nbeen made an engine for the propagation of the Church.  And the\nChristians--the Spanish poet Prudentius, for instance, or Pope Leo the\nGreat[18]--betray a strong consciousness of the place held by the\nempire in the divine preparation for Christ.  For long periods the\nRoman authority was tolerant of Christianity and suffered its\npropagation to go on in peace; and at the times when it became alarmed\nat its subversive tendencies, and turned to become its persecutor,\nstill the Church could not be prevented from using the imperial\norganization, its roads and its means of communication.  Again, every\nstep in the progress of the Greek language facilitated the spread of\nthe new religion, the propagation of which was through Greek; and\nconversely Christianity became an instrument for spreading the use of\nthis language which previously was making but a poor struggle against\nthe languages {27} of Asia Minor; for it is apparently a simple mistake\nto suppose that even the apostles were miraculously dispensed from the\ndifficulties of acquiring new languages, and were enabled to speak all\nlanguages as it were by instinct.  Even the imperial religion provided\na framework to facilitate the organization of that still more imperial\nreligion which it found indeed absolutely incompatible with its\nprerogatives, but in which it might have found an efficient substitute\nto accomplish its own best ends.  Thus the early Christian apologist\nTatian pleads that Christianity alone could supply what was manifestly\nneeded for a united world, a universal moral law and a universal\ngratuitous education or philosophy, open to rich and poor, men and\nwomen, alike[19].  So strong in fact was in many respects the affinity\nof the Empire and the Church that the apologists are not infrequently\nable to claim, and that plausibly, that if the Roman authorities were\nready to recognize it, they would find in the Church their most\nefficient ally.\n\nAnd there is no doubt that all this tendency to use the empire as the\nally and instrument of the Church began with St. Paul.  The closer St.\nPaul's evangelistic travels are examined the {28} more apparent does it\nbecome that he, the apostle who was also the Roman citizen, was by the\nvery force of circumstances, but also probably deliberately, working\nthe Church on the lines of the empire.  'The classification adopted in\nPaul's own letters of the churches which he founded, is according to\nprovinces--Achaia, Macedonia, Asia, and Galatia; the same fact is\nclearly visible in the narrative of Acts.  It guides and inspires the\nexpressions from the time when the apostle landed at Perga.  At every\nstep any one who knows the country recognizes that the Roman division\nis implied[20].'  Nor can we fail to be struck with the regularity with\nwhich St. Paul, wherever he mentions the Empire, takes it on its best\nside and represents it as a divine institution whose officers are God's\nministers for justice and order and peace[21].  It is from this point\nof view alone that he will have Christians think of it and pray for\nit[22].  There is the confidence of the true son of the empire in his\n'I appeal unto Caesar[23].'\n\nFurther than this, when St. Paul is addressing himself to Gentiles who\nhad received no leavening of Jewish monotheism, it is most striking\n{29} how he throws himself back on those common philosophical and\nreligious ideas which were permeating the thought of the Empire.  'The\npopular philosophy inclined towards pantheism, the popular religion was\npolytheistic, but Paul starts from the simplest platform common to\nboth.  There exists something in the way of a divine nature which the\nreligious try to please and the philosophers try to understand[24].'\nClose parallels to St. Paul's language in his two recorded speeches at\nLystra and at Athens, can be found in the writings of the contemporary\nStoic philosopher Seneca[25], and in the so-called 'Letters of\nHeracleitus' written by some philosophic student nearly contemporary\nwith St. Paul at Ephesus[26].  In exposing the folly of idolaters he\nwas only doing what a contemporary philosopher was doing also, and\nrepeating ideas which he might have learnt almost as readily in the\nschools of his native city Tarsus--which Strabo speaks of as the most\nphilosophical place in the world, and the place where philosophy was\nmost of all an indigenous plant[27]--as at the {30} feet of Gamaliel in\nJerusalem.  Certainly Paul the apostle to the Gentiles was also Saul of\nTarsus and the citizen of the Roman Empire in whose mind the idea and\nsentiment of the empire lay already side by side with the idea of the\ncatholic church.\n\nSuch a statement as has just been given of the relation of the Roman\norganization to the Church is undoubtedly true.  And it is also\nindisputable that St. Paul was in fact the pioneer in using the empire\nfor the purposes of the Church.  But it is more questionable to what\nextent the idea of the empire as the handmaid of the Church was\nconsciously and deliberately, or only unconsciously or instinctively,\npresent to his mind; and in particular it is questionable how far the\npeculiar exaltation of the epistles of the first captivity is due to\nSt. Paul's realization that in getting to Rome, the capital and centre\nof the Empire, he had reached a goal which was {31} also a fresh and\nunique starting-point for the evangelization of the world.\n\nTo some extent this must certainly have been the case[28].  While he is\nat Ephesus[29] preaching, he already has Rome in view, and a sense of\nunaccomplished purpose till he has visited it, 'I must also see Rome.'\nWhen a little later he writes to the Romans, the name of Rome is a name\nboth of attraction and of awe.  He is eager to go to Rome, but he seems\nto fear it at the same time.  So much as in him lies, he is ready to\npreach the gospel to them also that are at Rome.  Even in face of all\nthat that imperial name means, he is not ashamed of the Gospel[30].\n\nLater the divine vision at Jerusalem assures him that, as he has borne\nwitness concerning Christ at Jerusalem, so he must bear witness also at\nRome[31].  The confidence of this divine purpose mingles with and\nreinforces the confidence of the Roman citizen in his appeal to Caesar.\nThe sense of the divine hand upon him to take him to Rome is\nstrengthened by another vision amid the terrors of the sea voyage[32].\nAt his first contact with the Roman {32} brethren 'he thanked God and\ntook courage[33].'  This sense of thankfulness and encouragement\npervades the whole of the first captivity so far as it is represented\nin his letters.  He had reached the goal of his labours and a fresh\nstarting-point for a wide-spreading activity.\n\nCertainly no one can mistake the glow of enthusiasm which pervades the\nepistles of the first captivity generally, but especially the Epistle\nto the Ephesians.  It is conspicuously, and beyond all the other\nepistles, rapturous and uplifted.  And this is not due--as is the\ncheerful thankfulness of the Epistle to the Philippians, at least in\npart--to the specially intimate relations of St. Paul to the\ncongregations he was addressing, or to the specially satisfactory\ncharacter of their Christian life.  On the contrary, St. Paul perceived\nthat the Asiatic churches, and especially Ephesus, were threatened by\nvery ominous perils.  'Very grievous wolves were entering in, not\nsparing the flock; and among themselves men were arising, speaking\nperverse things, to draw away the disciples after them[34].'  St.\nPaul's rapturous tone must be accounted for by causes independent of\nthe Ephesian or Asiatic Christians in particular.  {33} Among these\ncauses, as we have just seen, must be reckoned the fact, the\nsignificance of which we have been dwelling upon, that St. Paul had now\nreached Rome, the centre of the Gentile world.  But it must also be\nremembered that St. Paul had seen a great conflict fought out and won\nfor the catholicity of Christianity, and that now for the first time\nthere was a pause and freedom to take advantage of it.\n\nA great conflict had been fought and won.  The backbone of the earlier\nJewish opposition to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles on\nequal terms had been broken.  They had in fact swept into the Church in\nincreasing numbers.  Their rights were recognized and their position\nuncontested.  There is now, in the comparative quiet of the 'hired\nhouse' where St. Paul was confined, a period of pause in which he can\nfitly sum up the results which have been won, and let the full meaning\nof the catholic brotherhood be freely unfolded.  It is time to pass\nfrom the rudiments of the Christian gospel, the vindication of its most\nelementary principles and liberties, the 'milk for babes,' to expound\nthe spiritual wisdom of the full-grown Christian manhood, the 'solid\nmeat for them of riper years.'\n\n{34}\n\nIt is this sense of pause in conflict and free expansion in view of a\nvast opportunity, which in great part at least interprets the glow and\nglory of St. Paul's epistle.\n\n\niv.\n\nThe Epistle to the Ephesians might, so far as its contents are\nconcerned, have been addressed to any of the predominantly Gentile\nchurches; but to none more fitly than to Ephesus and to the churches of\nAsia, where the progress of Gentile Christianity had been so rapid, and\nwhere St. Paul's ministry had been so unusually prolonged.  Let us\nattempt to answer the questions--what was Ephesus? what was the\nhistory, and what were the circumstances of the Ephesian church?\n\nEphesus had a double importance as a Greek and as an Asiatic city.  A\ncolony of Ionians from Athens had early settled on some hills which\nrose out of a fertile plain near the mouth of the Cayster.  This was\nthe origin of the Greek city of Ephesus.  Its position gave it\nadmirable commercial advantages.  It became the greatest mart of\nexchange[35] between East {35} and West in Asia Minor, and though its\ncommerce was threatened by the filling up of its harbour, it had not\ndecayed in St. Paul's time.\n\nAmong Greek cities it also occupied a not inconspicuous place in the\nhistory of art, and at an earlier period of philosophy also.  Here was\none of the chief homes of the Homeric tradition; hence in the person of\nCallinus the Greek elegy is reputed to have had its origin, and in the\nperson of Hipponax the satire.  It was the home of Heracleitus, one of\nthe greatest of the early philosophers, and of Apelles and Parrhasius,\nthe masters of painting[36].\n\nAnd the greatest artists in sculpture--Phidias and Polycletus, Scopas\nand Praxiteles--had adorned with their works the temple of Artemis,\nwhich, in itself one of the wonders of the world, the masterpiece of\nIonic architecture, became also, like some great Christian cathedral, a\nvery museum of sculpture and painting.\n\nIf Greek artists built and decorated the temple of Artemis, they\nattempted no doubt to represent the goddess under the form which her\nGreek name suggested, the beautiful huntress-goddess; but the Greeks\nnever in fact succeeded in {36} affecting the thoroughly Asiatic and\noriental character of a worship which had nothing Greek about it except\nthe name.  The interest of Ephesus as an Asiatic city centred about\nthat ancient worship which had its home in the plain below the Greek\nsettlement.  It was there before the Greeks came, it held its own\nthroughout and in spite of all Greek and Roman influences; all through\nthe history of Ephesus it gave its main character to the city--the\nnoted home of superstition and sorcery.\n\nThe Artemis of Ephesus was, as Jerome remarks[37], not the\nhuntress-goddess with her bow, but the many-breasted symbol of the\nproductive and nutritive powers of nature, the mother of all life, free\nand untamed like the wild beasts who accompanied her.  The grotesque\nand archaic idol believed to have fallen down from heaven was a stiff,\nerect mummy covered with many breasts and symbols of wild beasts.  Her\nworship was organized by a hierarchy of eunuch priests--called by a\nPersian name Megabyzi--and 'consecrated' virgins.  It was associated,\nlike other worships of the same divinity called indifferently Artemis\nor Cybele or Ma, with ideals of life which from the point {37} of view\nof any fixed moral order, Roman or Greek no less than Jewish or\nChristian, was lawless and immoral.\n\nIt is very well known how the Asiatic nature-worships flooded the Roman\nempire, and even at Rome itself became by far more popular than the\ntraditional state religion.  And among these Asiatic worships none was\nmore popular than the worship of Artemis of Ephesus, whose temple was\nthe wonder of the world, and who not only was worshipped publicly at\nEphesus, but was the object of a cult both public and private in\nwidely-separated parts of the empire.  Such a temple and such a worship\nwould naturally collect a base and corrupt population; but what would\nin any case have been bad was rendered worse by the fact that the area\nround the temple was an asylum of refuge from the law, and that, as the\narea of 'sanctuary' was extended at different times, the collection of\ncriminals became greater and greater.  It had reached a point where it\nthreatened the safety of the city, and not long before St. Paul's time\nthe Emperor Augustus had found it necessary to curtail the area.  The\nhistory of our own Westminster is enough to assure us that a religious\nasylum brings social degradation in its train.\n\n{38}\n\nSuch was the commercial and religious importance of the beautiful,\nwealthy, effeminate, superstitious, and most immoral city which became\nfor three years the centre of St. Paul's ministry.  On his second\nmissionary journey St. Paul was making his way to Asia, and no doubt to\nEphesus, when he with his companions were hindered by the Holy Ghost\nand turned across the Hellespont to Macedonia[38].  On his return to\nSyria, he could not be satisfied without at least setting foot in\nEphesus and making a beginning of preaching there in the synagogue[39];\nbut he was hastening back to Jerusalem, and, with a promise of return,\nleft his work there to Priscilla and Aquila.  On his third missionary\njourney Ephesus was the centre of his prolonged work.  It was\naccordingly the only city of the first rank which, so far as any\ntrustworthy evidence goes, had as the founder of its Church in the\nstrictest sense--that is, as the first gatherer of converts as well as\norganizer of institutions--either St. Paul or any other apostle[40].\n\nSt. Paul's first activity on arriving at Ephesus illustrates the stress\nhe laid on the gift of the Holy Ghost as the central characteristic of\n{39} Christianity.  He was brought in contact with the twelve imperfect\ndisciples who had been baptized only with John the Baptist's baptism,\nand had not so much as heard whether the Holy Ghost was given.  St.\nPaul baptized them anew with Christian baptism, and bestowed upon them\nthe gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of his hands[41].  Then it\nis recorded how he began his preaching as usual with the Jews in the\nsynagogue.  The Jews of Asia Minor were regarded by the Jews of\nJerusalem as corrupted and Hellenized[42].  But at any rate they\nexhibited the same antagonism to the preaching of Christianity as their\nstricter brethren.  Thus St. Paul, when he had given them their chance,\nabandoned their synagogue and established himself in the lecture-room\nof Tyrannus, where he taught for two years and more[43].  And this\nbecame the centre of an evangelization which, even if St. Paul himself\ndid not visit other Asiatic towns, yet spread by the agency of his\ncompanions over the whole of the Roman {40} province of Asia--to the\nchurches of the Lycus, Colossae, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and probably to\nthe rest of the 'seven churches' to which St. John wrote in his\nApocalypse.\n\nEphesus was full of superstitions of all sorts as would be expected,\nand St. Paul's miracles were such as would not unnaturally have led the\nmagicians to regard him as a greater master in their own craft.  So\namong others the Jewish chief priest Sceva's seven sons began to use\nthe central name of Paul's preaching as a new and most efficient\nformula for exorcism.  'We adjure thee by Jesus whom Paul preaches.'\nBut it is frequently noticeable that St. Paul refused to allow himself\nto use superstition as a handmaid of religion.  The providential\ndisaster which befell these exorcists gave St. Paul an opportunity of\nstriking an effective blow where it was most needed against exorcism\nand magic.  The Christian converts came and confessed their\nparticipation in the black arts, and burnt their books of incantations,\nin spite of their value.  The whole transaction must have impressed\nvividly in the minds of the Ephesians the contrast between Christianity\nand superstition.\n\nSt. Paul had already encountered opposition as well as success at\nEphesus, for when, writing {41} from Ephesus, he speaks to the\nCorinthians[44] of having 'fought with beasts' there, the reference is\nprobably to what had befallen him in the earlier part of his residence\nthrough the plots of the Jews; that long Epistle to the Corinthians can\nhardly have been written _after_ the famous tumult recorded in the\nActs.  But that tumult, raised by the manufacturers of the silver\nshrines of Artemis, was of course the most important persecution which\nbefell St. Paul at Ephesus.  The narrative of it[45] is exceedingly\ninstructive.  We notice the friendliness of the Asiarchs, i.e. the\npresidents of the provincial 'union' and priests of the imperial\nworship, and the opinion of the town clerk, that St. Paul must be\nacquitted of any insults to the religious beliefs of the Ephesians[46].\nChristianity had not, it appears, yet excited the antipathy of the\nreligious or civil authorities of the Empire, but it had begun to\nthreaten the pockets of those who were concerned in supplying the needs\nof the worshippers who thronged to the great {42} temple at Ephesus.\nWe need not inquire exactly how the little silver shrines of Artemis\nwere used; but they were much sought after, and their production gave\noccupation to an important trade.  The trade was threatened by the\nspread of Christianity.  The philosophers despised indeed the\nidolatrous rites, but they despised also the people who practised them,\nand had no hope or idea of converting them[47].  St. Paul was the first\nteacher at Ephesus who touched the fears of the idol makers by bringing\na pure religion to the hearts of the ordinary people.  Hence the tumult\nagainst the teachers of the new religion, raised not by the civil or\nreligious authorities of Ephesus, but simply by the trade interest.\n\nAs soon as it was over St. Paul left Ephesus not to return there again.\nBut on his way back to Jerusalem he came not to Ephesus but to Miletus,\nand sending for the Ephesian presbyters thither, he made them a\nfarewell speech[48], which is in conspicuous harmony with the features\nof his later Epistle to the Ephesians.  Already the doctrines of a\ndivine purpose or {43} counsel now revealed, of the Church in general\nas the object of the divine self-sacrifice and love, and of the Holy\nGhost as accomplishing her sanctification and developing her structure,\nappear to be prominent in his mind, and to have become familiar topics\nwith the Ephesian Christians.  'I shrank not from declaring unto you\nthe whole counsel of God.  Take heed unto yourselves and to all the\nflock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the\nchurch of God, which he purchased with his own blood....  And now I\ncommend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to\nbuild you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are\nsanctified.'  These words from St. Paul's speech to the Ephesian\npresbyters are in remarkable affinity with the teaching of our epistle.\n\n\nv.\n\nWe have been assuming that this epistle was addressed to Ephesus, but\nthere are reasons to believe that it was not addressed to Ephesus only,\nbut rather generally to the churches of the Roman province of Asia, of\nwhich Ephesus was the chief.  The reasons for thinking this are {44}\npartly internal to the epistle.  St. Paul's personal relations to\nindividual Ephesian Christians must have been many and close, and we\nknow his habit of introducing personal allusions and greetings into his\nepistles; but the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians is destitute of\nthem altogether, contrasting in this respect even with the Epistle to\nthe Colossians, written at the same time to a church which St. Paul\nhimself never visited.  This would be a most inexplicable fact if the\nEpistle to the Ephesians were really a letter to this one particular\nchurch.  More than this, St. Paul speaks in several passages in a way\nwhich implies that he and those he wrote to were dependent on what they\nhad heard for mutual knowledge--'having heard of the faith in the Lord\nJesus that is among you'--'if so be ye have heard of the dispensation\nof the grace of God which was given me to youward.'  Such language is\nmuch more natural if he is writing to others besides the Ephesians.\nAnd this evidence internal to the substance of the epistle coincides\nwith evidence of the manuscripts.  Very early manuscripts, some of\nthose which remain to us and some which are reported to us by primitive\nscholars, omit the words 'in Ephesus' from St. Paul's opening greeting\n'To the saints {45} and faithful brethren which are [in Ephesus].'\nThis fact, coupled with the absence of personal reminiscences in the\nepistle, has suggested the idea that it was in fact a circular letter\nto the saints and faithful brethren at a number of churches of the\nRoman province of Asia, and that where the words 'in Ephesus' stand in\nour text, there was perhaps a blank left in the epistle as St. Paul\ndictated it, which was intended to be filled up in each church where it\nwas read.  This is a view which has to a certain extent a special\ninterest for us in Westminster because, if it was first suggested by\nthe Genevan commentator Beza, it was elaborated by Archbishop Ussher,\nwho is identified with our Abbey by residence and by the memorable\nrecord of his entombment in our abbey church with Anglican rites by the\ncommand of Cromwell.  It follows naturally from such a view that when\nSt. Paul writes to the Colossians and bids them send their letter to\nLaodicea, and read that which comes from Laodicea[49], the letter which\nthey should expect from Laodicea would be none other than the so-called\nEpistle to the Ephesians which was to be read by them as well as the\nother Asiatic Christians.\n\n\n{46}\n\nvi.\n\nEnough perhaps has now been said to give a general idea of the\nconditions under which this great epistle was written; and the topics\nof the epistle have been already indicated.  Its central theme is that\nof the great catholic society, the renovated Israel, the Church of God.\nIn this catholic brotherhood St. Paul sees the realization of an\nage-long purpose of God, the fulfilment of a long-secret counsel, now\nat last disclosed to His chosen prophets.  He sees nothing incongruous\nin finding in the yet young and limited societies of Christian\ndisciples the consummation of the divine purpose for the world, for\nthese societies represent the breaking down of all barriers and the\nbringing of all men to unity with one another through a recovered unity\nwith God, through Christ and in His Spirit.  Therefore the work which\nthe Church is to accomplish is nothing less than a universal work, a\nwork not even limited to humanity; it is the bringing back of all\nthings visible or invisible into that unity which lies in God's\noriginal purpose of creation.  St. Paul long ago had spoken to the\nCorinthians of a spiritual wisdom which they were not yet ready to\nlisten {47} to.  But now St. Paul seems to feel--for reasons which we\nhave tried in part to interpret--that the time has come when all the\ndepth and richness of the divine secret may be spoken out.  No wonder\nthat the subject stirs his imagination and gives to his whole tone an\nuplifting and a glory without parallel in his other writings.  And yet\nit would be altogether false to attach to this epistle any associations\nsuch as are commonly connected with flights of imagination or the\nlanguage of rhapsody.  For the epistle has the most direct bearing on\nmatters of practical life.  If St. Paul glorifies the Christian ideal\nit is in order that all that weight of glory may be brought to bear\nupon the Asiatic Christians to force them to see that their personal\nand social conduct must have a purity, a liberality, a wisdom, a love,\na power, commensurate with the greatness of those motives which are\nacting upon them in their new Christian state.\n\n\n\n[1] The Committee of the Conference of Bishops at Lambeth, 1897, in a\nreport commended by the bishops as a body to the 'consideration of all\nChristian people,' write: 'Your committee do not hold that a true view\nof Holy Scripture forecloses any legitimate question about the literary\ncharacter or literal accuracy of different parts or statements of the\nOld Testament.'\n\n[2] Acts xxiv 14; xxvi. 6, 7, 22, 23; 2 Tim i. 3.\n\n[3] Eph. ii. 12-19.\n\n[4] 1 Thess. ii. 14-16.\n\n[5] Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans.\n\n[6] See app. note C, p. 257.\n\n[7] Acts ix. 20; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 4.\n\n[8] Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon.\n\n[9] Col. ii. 18: 'by a voluntary humility (or 'taking delight in\nhumility') and worshipping of the angels.'\n\n[10] See i. 13-20; ii. 2, 3, 9-23; iii. 11.  Cf. i. 27-28.\n\n[11] Hort, _Judaistic Christianity_ (Macmillan, 1894), p. 125.\n\n[12] Cf. app. note C, p. 257.\n\n[13] Cf. Hort, _Prolegomena to Romans and Ephesians_ (Macmillan, 1895),\np. 100.\n\n[14] Col. iv. 2-4; Philemon 22; Phil. i. 12-14.\n\n[15] Ramsay, _Paul the Traveller_ (Hodder and Stoughton, 1895), pp. 130\nff.\n\n[16] Ramsay, _l.c._ p. 132.\n\n[17] See Mommsen, _Provinces of Roman Empire_ (Eng. trans.), i. 344\nff.; Lightfoot, _Ign. and Polyc._ iii. pp. 404 ff.\n\n[18] App. note A, p. 251.\n\n[19] Tatian, _Ad Graecos_, 28, 32.\n\n[20] Ramsay, _l.c._  p. 135.\n\n[21] Rom. xiii. 1-7; cf. ii. Thess. ii. 6.\n\n[22] 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.\n\n[23] Acts xxv. 12.\n\n[24] Ramsay, _l.c._ p. 147.\n\n[25] Lightfoot, _Galatians_, 'St. Paul and Seneca,' pp. 287 ff.\n\n[26] See app. note B, p. 253.\n\n[27] 'The zeal of its inhabitants for philosophy and general culture is\nsuch that they have surpassed even Athens and Alexandria and all other\ncities where schools of philosophy can be mentioned.  And its\npre-eminence in this respect is so great because there the students are\nall townspeople, and strangers do not readily settle there.'  Strabo,\nxiv. v. 13.  I do not suppose that St. Paul received any formal\neducation in Greek schools at Tarsus.  But I think we must assume that\nat some period St. Paul had sufficient contact with Gentile educated\nopinion, whether at Tarsus or elsewhere, to be acquainted with\nwidely-spread religious and philosophical tendencies.\n\n[28] Cf. Hort, _Christian Ecclesia_, p. 143.\n\n[29] Acts xix. 21.\n\n[30] Rom. i. 15, 16.\n\n[31] Acts xxiii. 11.\n\n[32] Acts xxvii. 24.\n\n[33] Acts xxviii. 15.\n\n[34] Acts xx. 29, 30.\n\n[35] Among other articles of commerce, tents made in Ephesus had a\nspecial reputation, and St. Paul and Aquila had special opportunities\nthere for the exercise of their trade.  Acts xx. 34.\n\n[36] Strabo. xiv. 1, 25.\n\n[37] Migne, _P. L._ xxvi. 441.\n\n[38] Acts xvi. 6-10.\n\n[39] Acts xviii. 19.\n\n[40] Hort, _Prolegomena_, p. 83.\n\n[41] Acts xix. 1-7.\n\n[42] Ramsay, _l.c._ p. 143.\n\n[43] 'From the fifth to the tenth hour' (11 a.m. to 4 p.m.), an early\naddition to the text of the Acts tells us; i. e. after work hours, when\nthe school would naturally be vacant and St. Paul would have finished\nhis manual labour at tent-making.  Ramsay, _l.c._ p. 276.\n\n[44] 1 Cor. xv. 32.\n\n[45] Acts xix. 23 ff.\n\n[46] Prof. Ramsay asserts that instead of 'robbers of temples' (Acts\nxix. 37), we should translate 'disloyal to the established government.'\n_l.c._ p. 282.  But the word is used in the former sense in special\nconnexion with Ephesus by Strabo, xiv. 1, 22, and Pseudo-Heracleitus,\n_Ep._ 7, p. 64 (Bernays).\n\n[47] See app. note B, p. 253, on the contemporary 'letters of\nHeracleitus.'\n\n[48] Acts xx. 17 ff.\n\n[49] Col. iv. 16.\n\n\n\n\n{48}\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS\n\nCHAPTER I. 1-2.\n\nSalutation.\n\n[Sidenote: _Salutation_]\n\nSt. Paul begins this, in common with his other epistles, with a brief\nsalutation to a particular church or group of churches, in which is\nexpressed in summary the authority he has for writing to them, the\nlight in which he regards them, and the central wish for them which he\nhas in his heart.\n\n\nPaul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints\nwhich are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you\nand peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\n\nHere, then, we have three compressed thoughts.\n\n1.  The particular person Paul writes this letter because he is not\nonly a believer in Christ but also an 'apostle of Christ Jesus through\nthe will of God.'  The word apostle is a more or less general word for\na delegate, as when St. Paul {49} speaks of the 'apostles (or\nmessengers) of the churches[1];' but by an apostle in its highest\nsense, 'an apostle of Jesus Christ,' St. Paul meant one of those,\noriginally twelve in number, who had received personally from the risen\nChrist a particular commission to represent Him to the world.  This\nparticular and personal commission he claimed to have received, in\ncommon with the twelve, though later than they--at the time of his\nconversion.  'Am I not an apostle?' he cries.  'Have I not seen Jesus\nour Lord[2]?'  'He appeared to me also as unto one born out of due\ntime[3].'  'In nothing was I behind the very chiefest apostles[4].'\nAnd as his claim to the apostolate was challenged by his Judaizing\nopponents he had to insist upon it, to insist that it is not a\ncommission from or through Peter and the other apostles, or dependent\nupon them for its exercise, but a direct commission, like theirs, from\nthe Head of the Church Himself.  He is, he writes to the Galatians,\n'Paul, an apostle, not from men, nor (like those subsequently ordained\nby himself or the other apostles, like a Timothy, or a Titus, or like\nthe later clergy) through man,' but directly through, {50} as well as\nfrom, the risen Jesus whom his eyes had seen, and His eternal Father[5].\n\nIt is surely a consolation to us of the Church of England, who belong\nto a church subject to constant attack on the score of apostolic\ncharacter, to remember that St. Paul's apostolate was attacked with\nsome excuse, and that he had to spend a great deal of effort in\nvindicating it, and was in no way ashamed of doing so, because he\nperceived that a certain aspect of the life and truth of the Church was\nbound up with its recognition.\n\n2.  And he writes to the Asiatic Christians as 'saints' and 'faithful\nin Christ Jesus.'  'Saint' does not mean primarily what we understand\nby it--one pre-eminent in moral excellence; but rather one consecrated\nor dedicated to the service and use of God.  The idea of consecration\nwas common in all religions, and frequently, as in the Asiatic worships\nat Ephesus and elsewhere, carried with it associations quite the\nopposite of those which we assign to holiness.  But the special\ncharacteristic of the Old Testament religion had been the righteous and\nholy character which it ascribed to Jehovah.  Consecration to Him,\ntherefore, is seen to require {51} personal holiness, and this\nrequirement is only deepened in meaning under the Gospel.  But still\n'the saints' means primarily the 'consecrated ones'; and all Christians\nare therefore saints--'called as saints' rather than 'called to be\nsaints,' in virtue of their belonging to the consecrated body into\nwhich they were baptized; saints who because of their consecration are\ntherefore bound to live holily[6].  'The saints' in the Acts of the\nApostles[7] is simply a synonym for the Church.  St. Paul then writes\nto the Asiatic Christians as 'consecrated' and 'faithful in Christ\nJesus,' i. e. believing members incorporated by baptism; and he writes\nto them for no other purpose than to make them understand what is\nimplied in their common consecration and common faith.\n\n3.  And his good wishes for them he sums up in the terms 'Grace and\npeace in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.'  Grace is that free\nand unmerited favour or good-will of God towards man which takes shape\nin a continuous outflow of the very riches of God's {52} inmost being\nand spirit into the life of man through Christ; and peace of heart,\nGodward and manward, 'central peace subsisting at the heart of endless\nagitation' is that by the possession and bestowal of which Christianity\nbest gives assurance of its divine origin.\n\nWe notice that these divine gifts are ascribed to 'God our Father and\nthe Lord Jesus Christ.'  St. Paul does not generally call Christ by the\ntitle God, partly, no doubt, from long engrained habit of language, but\npartly also because nothing was more important than that no language\nshould be used in the first propagation of Christianity which could\ngive excuse for confusing the Christian belief in the threefold Name\nwith the worship of many gods.  But, from the first, Christ, in St.\nPaul's language, is exalted as Lord into a simply divine supremacy, and\nassociated most intimately with all the most exclusively divine\noperations in the world without, and in the heart of man within.\nMoreover, St. Paul refuses absolutely to tolerate any association of\nother, however exalted, beings with Christ in lordship or mediatorship,\nall created beings whatever being simply the work of His hands[8].\nThere remains, therefore, no room to {53} question that St. Paul\nbelieved Christ to be strictly divine: to be Himself no creature, no\nhighest archangel, but one who, with the Holy Spirit alone, is truly\nproper and essential to the divine being; and it affords us, therefore,\nno manner of surprise that from time to time St. Paul actually calls\nChrist God, as in the Epistle to the Romans 'who is over all, God\nblessed for ever[9],' and probably in the Epistle to Titus 'our great\nGod and saviour Jesus Christ[10].'\n\n\n\n[1] 2 Cor. viii. 23.\n\n[2] 1 Cor. ix. 1.\n\n[3] 1 Cor. xv. 8.\n\n[4] 2 Cor. xii. 11.\n\n[5] Gal. i. 1.\n\n[6] Tertullian, _de An._ 39, rightly interprets 1 Cor. vii. 14, 'now\nare they [the children of whose parents one was a Christian] holy,' as\nmeaning, now are they already consecrated and marked out for baptismal\nsanctification by the prerogative of their birth.\n\n[7] Acts ix. 13, 33.\n\n[8] Cf. 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16.\n\n[9] Rom. ix. 5.\n\n[10] Tit. ii. 13.\n\n\n\n\n{54}\n\nDIVISION I.  CHAPTERS I. 3-IV. 17.\n\nSec. I. CHAPTER i. 3-14.\n\n_St. Paul's leading thoughts._\n\n[Sidenote: _St. Paul's leading thoughts_]\n\nBefore we read the opening paragraph of St. Paul's letter we had better\nreview the great thoughts which are prominent in his mind as he writes.\nMy ambition is to make my readers feel that ideas which, because they\nhave become Christian commonplaces or because they have been blackened\nby controversy, have by this time a ring of unreality about them, or of\ntheological remoteness, or of controversial bitterness, are in fact, if\nwe will 'consider them anew,' ideas the most important, the most\npractical, and the most closely adapted to the moral needs of the plain\nman.\n\n\ni.\n\nSt. Paul writes to the Christians as 'in Christ,' 'in the beloved,'\n'blessed with all spiritual benediction in the heavenly places in\nChrist,' 'adopted {55} as sons through Jesus Christ.'  We are all of us\nperfectly familiar with the idea of Christ as, so to speak, a personal\nand individual redeemer, as the holy and righteous one, the beloved and\naccepted Son, who is risen from the dead and exalted to supreme\nsovereignty in heaven.  But popular theology has not been quite so\nfamiliar with the idea that Christ was and is all this in our manhood,\nnot simply because He was God as well as man (true as this is); but\nbecause as man He was anointed with the Holy Spirit of God: that it was\nin the power of that Spirit that He lived His life of holiness and\nwrought His miracles of power: that it was in the power of that Spirit\nthat He taught and suffered and died and was glorified.  Nor has\npopular Christianity been familiar with the resulting truth: that by\nthat divine Spirit which possessed Him as man, the life of Christ is\nextended beyond Himself to take in those who believe in Him, and make\nthem members of 'the church which is his body.'  Yet, in fact, this\nextension is implied even in the name Christ.  The king Messiah, the\nChrist of the Old Testament, is but the central figure of a whole\nkingdom associated with Him, and all the characteristic phrases for\nChrist in the New Testament {56} express the same idea.  He is the\n'first-born among many brethren[1]'; He is the 'first fruits[2]' of a\ngreat harvest; He is the 'head of the body[3]'; He is the 'bridegroom'\ninseparable from 'the bride[4]'; He is the second Adam, that is, head\nof a new humanity[5].  Thus if the heavens closed around the ascending\nChrist, and hid Him from view, they opened again around the descending\nSpirit, descending into the heart of the Christian society to\nperpetuate Christ's life and presence there.  This historical ascent\nand descent only embody in unmistakable facts the truth that the\nlife-giving Spirit, who made the manhood of Christ so satisfying to our\nmoral aspirations, is also and with the same reality, though not with\nthe same perfection or freedom, living and working in that great\nsociety which He founded to represent Him on earth.  Because this\nsociety is possessed by the Spirit, therefore it lives in the same life\nas Christ, it and all its individual members are 'in Christ.'  In one\nplace, indeed, St. Paul includes the Church, the body, with its head\nunder the one name 'the Christ[6].'\n\n[Sidenote: _Life in Christ_]\n\nIt is because the Church thus shares Christ's {57} life that it is\nalready spoken of as sharing His exaltation.  We 'sit together in the\nheavenly places with Christ' for no other reason than because, though\nwe are on earth, our life is bound up invisibly but in living reality\nwith the life of the glorified Christ, and we have in Him free access\ninto the courts of heaven.  For this reason again, as the fulness of\nthe divine attributes dwells in the glorified Christ--all the fulness\nof the Godhead bodily, so the same fulness is attributed, ideally at\nleast, to the Church too.  It too is 'the fulness of him that filleth\nall in all.'  To St. Paul's mind there is one true human life in which\nmen are one with one another because they are at one with God.  That\ntrue human life is Christ's life, which He once lived on earth, and\nwhich He is at present living in the glory of God, and which is\nfulfilled with all the completeness of the divine life itself.  But\nthat true human life is also shared by each and every member of His\nChurch, without exception, without reference to race or learning, or\nwealth, or sex, or age.\n\nI have said that this is ideally the case.  This identification of\nChrist with the Church, that is to say, is not yet fully realized.  The\nChurch is not yet glorified, not yet morally perfected nor {58} full\ngrown in the divine attributes.  Its particular members may be living\ndeceitful and dishonourable lives.  This is to say in other words that\nGod's work in 'redemption of his own possession,' His acquirement of a\npeople to Himself, is not yet complete.  The purchase-money is paid,\nbut it has not yet taken full effect.  But redemption is an\naccomplished fact in the sense that all the conditions of the final\nsuccess are already there.  The ideal may be freely realized in every\nChristian because he has received the 'earnest' or pledge of the\nSpirit, the pledge, that is, of all that is to be accomplished in him.\nAnd this Spirit was received by each Christian at a particular and\nassignable moment.  We know what stress St. Paul laid at Ephesus on\nproper Christian baptism and the laying on of hands which followed\nit[7].  By baptism men were spoken of as incorporated into Christ.\nWith the laying on of hands was associated the bestowal of the Spirit.\nHenceforth a Christian had no need to ask for the Spirit as if He were\nnot already bestowed upon him; he had only to bring into practical use\nspiritual forces and powers which the divine bounty had already put at\nhis disposal.\n\n{59}\n\nIf we compare this set of ideas with those that have been current in\nour popular theology, we shall find that the main difference lies in\nthis, that here the stress is laid on the work of Christ _in_ man by\nHis Spirit, while the theology which has been popular among us has laid\nthe stress rather on the 'vicarious' work of Christ outside us and\n_for_ us, by making a propitiation for our sins.  Now in fact this\nlatter doctrine is an unmistakable part of St. Paul's teaching in this\nepistle and elsewhere.  And all the mistakes to which it has led are\ndue to its not having been kept in proper relation to the set of ideas\nwhich I have just been endeavouring to expound.  'Christ for us,' the\nsacrifice of propitiation has been separated from 'Christ in us,' our\nnew life; whereas really the sacrifice was but a necessary removal of\nan obstacle, preliminary to the new life.\n\nIt was a necessary preliminary that Christ should put us on a fresh\nbasis, should enable us to break from our past and make a fresh start\nin the divine acceptance.  This He did by making atonement for our\nsins, offering as a propitiatory sacrifice His life, even to the\nshedding of His blood, that the Father might be enabled to forgive our\nsins.  This transaction is always {60} represented in the New Testament\nas being the act of the Father as well as of the Son, for the divine\npersons are not separable--neither an act by which the Son forces the\nunwilling hand of the Father, nor an act in which the Father lays an\nundeserved burden upon an unwilling Son--and the idea of propitiation\nseems to St. Paul, as indeed it has seemed to men generally, a\nthoroughly natural idea.  Only in one place does he make any suggestion\nas to why such a preliminary sacrifice of propitiation was necessary.\nThere[8] he seems to find the moral necessity for it in the fact that\nthrough long ages God's 'forbearance' had left men to work through\ntheir own resources and so to find out their need of Him.  'He suffered\nall nations to walk in their own ways.'  He 'winked at' or 'overlooked\ntimes of ignorance.'  He 'passed over sins[9].'  This was part of His\neducative process.  One result of it, however, was a lowering of the\nmoral ideas entertained of the divine character.  Thus God's\nrighteousness, which means holiness and compassion combined, needed to\nbe declared especially at that crisis of the divine dealings when God\nwas coming out towards {61} men, whom He had educated by His seeming\nabsence to feel their need of Him, with the offer of His love.  The\nfree bounty of His mercy must not be misunderstood as if it were\nindifference or laxity about moral wickedness.  Thus the proclamation\nof His compassion must be associated with something which would make\nunmistakable the severity of His holiness and His moral claim.  This\ntwofold end is what Christ accomplishes.  Thus if He is the revealer of\nthe compassion of the Father, He also vindicates the divine character\nby a great act of moral reparation, made in man's name and on man's\nbehalf, to the divine holiness which our sins have ignored and\noutraged.  This great act of reparation is consummated in the\nbloodshedding of the Christ.  The sacrifice of consummate obedience is\ncarried to its extreme point and accepted in its perfection.  God in\nChrist receives from man, and that publicly, a perfect reparation: an\nacknowledgement without fault or drawback: a perfect sacrifice.  Now\nGod can forgive the sins of men freely and without moral risk, if they\ncome to Him in the name of Christ.  To come to God in the name of\nChrist means, of course, to come in conscious moral identification of\none's self with Christ, with {62} His Spirit and His motives.  The\nfaith which simply accepts the bounty of forgiveness through Christ's\nsacrifice, must pass necessarily into the faith which corresponds\nobediently with the divine love.  Thus the purpose of the atonement is\nnever expressed as being that we should be let off punishment, or\nsimply that we should be forgiven, but rather that, being forgiven, we\nshould be united to Christ in His life[10].  The propitiation which\nChrist offered is only the removal of a preliminary obstacle to our\nfellowship with Him in the life of God.  The work of Christ 'for us'\nhas no meaning or efficacy till it has begun to pass into the work of\nChrist 'in us' by His assimilating Spirit.  It was only as baptized\ninto Christ and sharing His Spirit that Christians could accept the\nforgiveness of their sins through the shedding of Christ's blood.  The\nsacrament of new life is also the sacrament of absolution, and the\nwashing away of sins.  Nothing in fact can be plainer in this Epistle\nto the Ephesians than that 'the redemption through Christ's blood, even\nthe forgiveness of trespasses[11]' was only a preliminary removal of\n{63} obstacles to that fellowship with God in Christ by His Spirit\nwhich is the secret of the Church.\n\n\nii.\n\n[Sidenote: _Predestination_]\n\nSt. Paul's mind is full of the idea of predestination.  He delights to\ncontemplate the eternal purpose of God as lying behind what seems to us\nthe painfully slow method by which divine results are actually won.\nWhat age-long processes have been necessary both among the Jews and\namong the Gentiles before this young church, this divine society of man\nwith God has become possible!  What slow working through 'times of\nignorance,' what infinite delay in the divine forbearance--as we should\nnow say, what age-long processes of developement!  But St. Paul is\nquite certain that the result is no afterthought, no accident of the\nmoment; but that from end to end of the universe there reaches a method\nof the divine wisdom, and that here in the catholic church it has\narrived at an issue.  'God chose us in Christ before the foundation of\nthe world that we should be holy and without blemish (as spotless\nvictims) before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as\nsons through Jesus Christ unto himself.'  'Fore-ordained {64} to be a\nheritage according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after\nthe counsel of his will.'  So he asseverates and repeats and insists.\nThere are, we may say, two ideas commonly associated with\npredestination which St. Paul gives us no warrant for asserting.  The\none is the predestination of individuals to eternal loss or\ndestruction.  That God should create any single individual with the\nintention of eternally destroying or punishing him is a horrible idea,\nand, without prying into mysteries, we may say boldly that there is no\nwarrant for it in the Old or New Testaments.  God is indeed represented\nas predestinating men, like Jacob and Esau, to a higher or lower place\nin the order of the world or the church.  There are 'vessels' made by\nthe divine potter to purposes of 'honour,' and 'vessels' made to\npurposes (comparatively) of 'dishonour[12]': there are more honourable\nand less honourable limbs of the body[13].  But this does not prejudice\nthe eternal prospects of those who in this world hold the less\nadvantageous posts.  With God is no respect of persons.  Again God is\nrepresented as predestinating men to moral hardness of heart where such\nhardness is a judgement on previous wilfulness.  Thus {65} men may be\npredestined to temporary rejection of God, as in St. Paul's mind the\nmajority of the contemporary Jews were.  That was their judgement, and\ntheir punishment[14].  It was however not God's first intention for\nthem nor His last.  Those chapters of St. Paul[15] which contain the\nmost terrible things about the present reprobation of the Jews contain\nalso the most emphatic repudiation of the idea that moral reprobation\nwas God's first idea for them, or His last.  'The gifts and calling of\nGod,' that is, His good gifts and calling, says St. Paul, speaking of\nthe now 'reprobate' Jews, are 'without repentance[16].'  God's present\nreprobation of them is only a process towards a fresh opportunity.\n'God hath shut up all into disobedience that he might have mercy upon\nall[17].'  Men may baffle the original divine purpose, and that, so far\nas their own blessedness is concerned, even finally: they may become\nfinally 'reprobate': but the divine purpose for them at its root\nremains a purpose for good.  'God will have all men to be saved and to\ncome to the knowledge of the truth[18].'\n\n{66}\n\nAnd once again, the idea of a predestination for good, taking effect\nnecessarily and irrespective of men's co-operation, is an idea which\nhas been intruded unjustifiably into St. Paul's thought.  It exalts his\nwhole being to consider that he is co-operating with God, and that the\nconditions under which he lives represent a divine purpose with which\nhe is called to work.  It is this which makes him feel it is worth\nwhile working: it is this which nerves and sustains him in all\nsufferings, and enlarges his horizon in all restraints: but he never\nsuggests that it does not lie within the mysterious power of his own\nwill to withdraw himself from co-operation with God.  It is at least\nconceivable to him that he should himself be rejected[19].  In that\nfamous list of external forces which he feels are unable to tear him\nfrom the grasp of the divine love, his own will is not included[20],\nnor could be included without gross inconsistency.\n\nBeyond all question there is here one problem which remains for all\ntime unsolved and insoluble--the relation of divine fore-knowledge[21]\n{67} to human freedom.  If we men are free to choose, how can it be, or\ncan it really be the case at all, that God knows beforehand actually\nhow each individual will behave in each particular case?  This is a\nproblem which we cannot fathom any more than we can fathom any of the\nproblems which require for their solution an experience of what an\nabsolute and eternal consciousness can mean.  But the problem belongs\nto metaphysics.  It inheres in the idea of eternity and God.  The Bible\nneither creates it nor solves it.  We may say it does not touch it.\n\nCertainly when St. Paul dwells upon the thought of divine\npredestination he dwells upon it in order to emphasize that, through\nall the vicissitudes of the world's history, a divine purpose runs; and\nespecially that God works out His universal purposes through specially\nselected agents 'his elect,' on whom His choice rests for special ends\nin accordance with an eternal design and intention.  And the sense of\nco-operating with an eternal purpose of God inspires and strengthens\nhim.  For God will not drop His work by the way.  Whom He did foreknow\nor mark out beforehand for His divine purposes, them He also\nforeordained or predestinated to sonship, and in due time called into\nthe number {68} of His elect, and justified them, that is, pardoned\ntheir sins and gave them a new standing-ground in Christ, and glorified\nor will glorify them by the gradual operation of His grace[22].  The\nsteps or moments of the divine action recognized in the Epistle to the\nRomans are practically the same as those alluded to in the Epistle to\nthe Ephesians.  There also is the eternal choice, and the\npredestination to sonship, and at a particular time the call into the\nChurch, and the justification or remission of sins through the blood of\nChrist, and the gradual promotion through sanctification to glory.  And\nthe moral fruit of contemplating God's eternal purpose for His elect,\nand the stages of His work upon them, is to be cheerful confidence of a\nright sort.  God will not drop them by the way, nor the work which they\nare 'called' to accomplish.  'God who hath begun a good work will\nperfect it until the day of Jesus Christ[23].'  Wherever St. Paul\nrecognizes a movement towards good in the single soul or in the world,\nhe knows that it is no accidental or passing phase: it has its roots in\nthe eternal will, and unless we resist it in wilful obstinacy, the\neternal will shall at last {69} carry it on to perfection.  'There\nshall never be one lost good.'\n\nIt is not out of place to notice in this connexion how closely akin is\nSt. Paul's thought to the modern philosophy of evolution.  Only to St.\nPaul the slow process of cosmic or human evolution is in no kind of\nopposition to the idea of divine design.\n\n\niii.\n\n[Sidenote: _The elect_]\n\nThis predestinated body, the Church, is what in another word St. Paul\ncalls the 'elect' or 'chosen.'  The idea of election has had a very\nfalse turn given to it, partly through mistakes which have been already\nalluded to, partly because the idea of election has been separated from\nanother idea with which in the Bible it is most closely associated, the\nidea of a universal purpose to which the elect minister.  No thought\ncan be more prominent in the Old Testament than the thought that some\nmen out of multitudes have been chosen by God to be in a special\nrelation of intimacy with Him.  'You only have I known, O Israel, of\nall the families of the earth.'  But this election to special knowledge\nof God, and special spiritual opportunity, {70} carries with it a\ncorresponding responsibility.  It is no piece of favouritism on God's\npart.  The greater our opportunity the more is required of us.  'You\nonly have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I\nvisit upon you all your iniquities[24].'  The fact is that the\nprinciple of inequality in capacity and opportunity runs through the\nwhole world both in individuals and in societies.  A great genius or a\ngreat nation has special privileges and opportunities, but also, in the\nsight of God who judges men according to their opportunities, special\nresponsibilities.  But also (and this is by far the most important\npoint) the special vocation of every elect individual or body is for\nthe sake of others[25].  It is God's method to work through the few\nupon the many.  That is the law of ministry which binds all the world\nof strong and weak, of rich and poor, of learned and ignorant, into\none.  Thus Abraham had been chosen alone, but it was that, through his\nseed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed.  Israel was\nexclusively the people of God, but it was in order that all nations\nshould learn from them at last the word of God.  The apostles were {71}\nthe first 'elect' in Christ with a little Jewish company.  'We'--so St.\nPaul speaks of the Jewish Christians--'we who had before hoped in\nChrist.'  But it was to show the way to all the Gentiles ('ye also, who\nhave heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,') who\nwere also to constitute 'God's own possession' and His 'heritage.'  The\npurpose to be realized is a universal one: it is the re-union of man\nwith man, as such, by being all together reunited to God in one body.\nAnd this idea is to have application even beyond the bounds of\nhumanity.  Unity is the principle of all things as God created the\nworld.  'In Christ,' St. Paul writes to the Colossians, 'all things\nconsist' or 'hold together in one system[26].'  It is only sin, whether\nin man or in the dimly-known spiritual world which lies beyond, which\nhas spoiled this unity, and in separating the creatures from God has\nseparated them from one another.  And the Church of the reconciliation\nis God's elect body to represent a divine purpose of restoration far\nwider than itself--extending in fact to all creation.  It is the divine\npurpose, with a view to 'a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to\nsum up' or 'bring together again in unity' all things in {72} Christ;\nthe things in the heaven, the dim spiritual forces of which we have\nonly glimpses, and the things upon the earth which we know so much\nbetter.\n\nThis great and rich idea of the election of the Church as a special\nbody to fulfil a universal purpose of recovery, cannot be expressed\nbetter than in the very ancient prayer which forms part of the paschal\nceremonies of the Latin liturgy.  'O God of unchangeable power and\neternal light, look favourably on Thy whole Church, that wonderful and\nsacred mystery, and by the tranquil operation of Thy perpetual\nprovidence, carry out the work of man's salvation; and let the whole\nworld feel and see that things which were cast down are being raised\nup, and things which had grown old are being made new, and all things\nare returning to perfection through Him, from whom they took their\norigin, even through our Lord Jesus Christ.'\n\n\niv.\n\n[Sidenote: _The divine secret disclosed_]\n\nThis universal reconciliation through a catholic church was God's\neternal purpose, but it was kept secret from the ages and the\ngenerations, only at last to be disclosed to His {73} apostles and\nprophets.  The word 'mystery' in the New Testament means mostly a\ndivine secret which has now been disclosed.  Just as the secret of\nNebuchadnezzar's dream, i.e. the purpose of God in the then order of\nthe world, was imparted to Daniel, so now the great disclosure of the\ndivine mystery or secret has been made, primarily indeed to apostles\nand prophets, but through them to the whole body of the faithful.  The\nfaithful must of course begin by receiving that simplest spiritual\nnourishment which is milk for babes.  They are to welcome the divine\nforgiveness of their sins in Christ, and the gift of new life through\nHim in their baptism and the laying-on of hands.  They are to be taught\nthe rudimentary truths and moral lessons which are the first principles\nof the oracles of Christ.  But they are not to stop with this.  They\nare, and they are all of them without exception[27], intended to grow\nup to the full apprehension of the wisdom of the 'perfect' or perfectly\ninitiated.  They are to dwell upon the divine secret, now revealed, of\nGod's purpose for the universe through the church till their whole\nheart and intellect and imagination is enlightened and enriched by it.\n\n\n{74}\n\nv.\n\n[Sidenote: _It is all of grace_]\n\nAnd is the greatness of this exaltation and knowledge vouchsafed to the\nChurch to be a renewed occasion of pride--that spiritual pride, the\nfatal results of which had already become apparent through the\nrejection of the Jews?  No: unless through a complete mistake, the very\nopposite must be the result.  The strength of human pride, as St. Paul\nhad seen long ago, lay in the idea that man could have merit of his\nown, face to face with God: could have good works which were his own\nand not God's, and which gave him a claim upon God.  That Jewish\ndoctrine of merit[28] had been convicted of utter falsity in St. Paul's\nown spiritual experience.  He had found himself brought to acknowledge,\nlike any sinner of the Gentiles, his simple dependence upon the divine\ncompassion for forgiveness and acceptance.  This spiritual experience\nof St. Paul was only the realizing through one channel of what is, in\nfact, an elementary truth about human nature.  The idea of human\nindependence is demonstrably a false idea.  As a matter of fact, man\ndraws his life, physical and spiritual, from {75} sources beyond\nhimself--from the one source, God.  In constant dependence on God he\nlives necessarily from moment to moment, whether to breathe, or think,\nor will.  The freedom of will which he has is not really originative or\ncreative power, but a capacity of voluntary correspondence with what is\ngiven him from beyond himself.  In that power of correspondence, or\nrefusal to correspond, man's liberty begins and ends.  He creates\nnothing.  It is not that man does something and then God does the rest.\nThe truth is that when we track man's good action to its root in his\nwill, we find for certain that God has been beforehand with him.  The\ngood he does is in correspondence with moral and physical laws and\nforces of the universe, or, in other words, with divine powers and\npurposes lent and suggested to him.  To attempt independence of God, to\nhave schemes and plans absolutely one's own, is to work arbitrarily and\nignorantly, and ultimately to fail and to know that one has failed.\nThus men, when they realize the facts of their condition, must depend,\nand rejoice to depend, wholly upon God as for forgiveness where they\nhave done wrong, so also for suggestion and power that they may do\nanything aright.  There is {76} then no room for human pride.  It is a\nmistake.  We come back to recognize, what St. Paul realized in his own\ndeep spiritual experience and taught the Church at the beginning.\nWhatever is good in the world is all of divine initiation and of divine\ngrace.  It is all, not to our glory, but (as St. Paul three times\nrepeats in the opening paragraphs of our epistle) 'to the praise of his\nglory,' or 'to the praise of the glory of his grace which he freely\nbestows on us' out of His pure love and goodwill.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _St. Paul's leading thoughts_]\n\nThese are the great leading thoughts which are in St. Paul's mind as he\nbegins to write to the Asiatic Christians.  His heart, his imagination,\nhis intellect is full of the thought of the catholic society as it\nexists in Christ, the extension of His life; of this society as the\noutcome of an eternal and slow-working purpose of God; of this society,\nas serving universal divine ends for humanity and for the universe; of\nthis society, as affording a sphere in which all men's faculties may be\nenlightened and delighted with the depth and largeness of the divine\npurpose; while his whole being is kept, safe from all the delusions of\npride, in continual and conscious dependence upon divine grace.  {77}\nWith these thoughts reflected in our minds we shall find that we have\nthe main clue to the whole of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and more\nparticularly to all the words of the opening chapter, which St. Paul\nbegins with a great ascription of praise to God for the blessing of the\nChurch.\n\n\nBlessed _be_ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath\nblessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly _places_ in\nChrist: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,\nthat we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having\nforeordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto\nhimself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of\nthe glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:\nin whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of\nour trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he made to\nabound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known unto us\nthe mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he\npurposed in him unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum\nup all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon\nthe earth; in him, _I say_, in whom also we were made a heritage,\nhaving been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh\nall things after the counsel of his will; to the end that we should be\nunto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ: in\nwhom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your\nsalvation,--in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy\nSpirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the\nredemption of _God's_ own possession, unto the praise of his glory.\n\n\n\n[1] Rom. viii. 29.\n\n[2] 1 Cor. xv. 23.\n\n[3] Eph. iv. 15, 16.\n\n[4] Eph. v. 32; Rev. xxi. 9.\n\n[5] 1 Cor. xv. 45; Rom. v. 12-19.\n\n[6] 1 Cor. xii. 12.\n\n[7] Acts xix. 1-7.\n\n[8] Rom. iii. 24-26.  I have tried to develope St. Paul's hint.\n\n[9] Rom. iii. 25; Acts xiv. 16; Acts xvii. 30.\n\n[10] The earliest and simplest expression of the matter is that in St.\nPaul's earliest epistle (1 Thess. v. 10), Christ 'died for us ... that\nwe should live together with him.'\n\n[11] Eph. i. 7; cf. ii. 13 ff.\n\n[12] Rom. ix. 21.\n\n[13] 1 Cor. xii. 22 ff.\n\n[14] Cf. St. Matt. xiii. 13-15; St. John xii. 39, 40.  We are not (Rom.\nix. 17) told _why_ Pharaoh was brought out on the stage of history as\nan example of God's hardening judgement.  But no doubt there was a\nmoral reason.\n\n[15] Rom. ix-xi.\n\n[16] Rom. xi. 29.\n\n[17] Rom. xi. 33.\n\n[18] 1 Tim. ii. 4.\n\n[19] 1 Cor. ix. 27.\n\n[20] Rom. viii. 38, 39\n\n[21] I am using the word here not in its Bible sense, for in the Bible\nGod is said to 'know' men in the sense of fixing His choice or approval\nupon them; and to 'foreknow' is therefore to approve or choose\nbeforehand, as suitable instruments for a divine purpose.  I am using\nthe word in its ordinary sense.\n\n[22] Rom. viii. 28-30.\n\n[23] Phil. i. 6.\n\n[24] Amos iii. 2.\n\n[25] On the Jewish idea of election, cf. app. note C, p. 261.\n\n[26] Col. i. 1.\n\n[27] Col. i. 28.\n\n[28] See app. note C, p. 257.\n\n\n\n\n{78}\n\nDIVISION I.  Sec. 2.  CHAPTER I. 15-23.\n\n_St. Paul's Prayer._\n\nSt. Paul follows up this first expression of the great thoughts that\nfill his mind with a deep and comprehensive thanksgiving for that large\nmeasure of correspondence with the divine purpose which is reported\nfrom the Asiatic churches, and with a prayer for their full\nenlightenment in heart and intellect.  He prays that they may rise to\nthe true science of what their Christian calling, as fellow-inheritors\nwith the saints of the divine blessing, really means; and to an\nadequate expectation of what God intends to do in them, on the analogy\nof what He has already done in Christ their head.\n\n\nFor this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus\nwhich is among you, and which _ye shew_ toward all the saints, cease\nnot to give thanks for you, making mention _of you_ in my prayers; that\nthe God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto\nyou a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having\nthe eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope\nof his calling, what the riches {79} of the glory of his inheritance in\nthe saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward\nwho believe, according to that working of the strength of his might\nwhich he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made\nhim to sit at his right hand in the heavenly _places_, far above all\nrule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is\nnamed, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and\nhe put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head\nover all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him\nthat filleth all in all.\n\n\nThere is very little further explanation needed for this passage.  But\nthree phrases may be noted:--\n\n(1) St. Paul calls the Father 'the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,' as\nour Lord Himself calls Him 'my God' (John xx. 17) in His resurrection\nstate.  It is no doubt of Christ _as man_ that the Father is God; but\nthis relation of the Son as man to the Father depends upon an eternal\nsubordination in which the Son, even as God, stands to the Father from\nwhom He derives His divine life.  The essential subordination of the\nSon (and Spirit) to the Father as the one fount of Godhead, is\ncontinually suggested in the New Testament; but it involves no\ninferiority in Godhead, or subsequence in time--'nothing before or\nafter, nothing greater or less,' as the _Quicunque vult_ says.  And it\nconveys to us the moral lesson that a subordinate position is not to be\nresented as if it were a dishonour.\n\n(2) The spirit of 'wisdom and revelation' vouchsafed to us is to enable\nus to apprehend in a measure the divine 'wisdom and prudence[1]'\nmanifested in God's work of creation and redemption.  The humility\nwhich is content to correspond patiently and teachably with the method\nof God is, as Francis Bacon was at pains to teach, of the essence of\nall fruitful human science.\n\n(3) The expression 'the fulness' or 'the fulness of the Godhead[2]'\nmeans the sum total of the divine attributes, which, instead of being\nspread over different angelic mediators, as the Colossians were\ndisposed to imagine, are, by the divine will, all concentrated and\ncombined in the glorified Christ.  And here St. Paul teaches the\nEphesian Christians that all that belongs to the glorified Christ is to\nbelong also to the Church, which is His body.  It is Christ who gives\nto all creatures whatever various gifts of life they have.  He 'filleth\nall in all'; that is, 'He filleth the whole universe with all variety\nof {81} gifts.'  But something much more than various gifts--the sum\ntotal of all He is--He pours, or intends to pour, into the Church, so\nthat the Church as well as the Christ shall embody, and thus be\nidentified with, the fulness of the divine attributes.  At present the\nChurch is this only ideally, or in the divine intention: the actually\nexisting Church has still much need of growth that her members 'may be\nfilled (as they are not at present) up to the measure of the divine\nfulness'; or, in other words, up to 'the measure of the stature of the\nfulness of the Christ[3].'\n\nThe fulness, according to St. Paul's doctrine, is to be sought first in\nthe eternal God; then in the glorified Christ; then, through Him, in\nthe fully developed Church; and, finally, through the Church, in a\nsense in the universe as a whole, when the work of redemption is done\nand God is at last 'all in all' throughout His creation.\n\nIt may be noticed that St. Paul, in this doctrine of 'the fulness,' is\nthinking rather of the divine attributes as manifested, than as they\nare in themselves: and of Christ, not as the eternal {82} Son of God,\nbut, more particularly, as incarnate and glorified.  It was the 'good\npleasure' of the Father to fill the exalted Christ, the first-begotten\nfrom the dead, with the fulness of divine glory and power as the reward\nof the humility and love which He showed when He 'emptied himself in\ntaking the form of a servant[4].'  This bestowal was no doubt a giving\nanew to Him, as man and as head of the Church, what was eternally His\nas Son of the Father.\n\nThere is another interpretation adopted by Chrysostom in ancient times,\nand by Dr. Hort among moderns, of the phrase 'the church which is his\nbody, the fulness of him who filleth all in all.'  According to them\nthe Church is regarded as making the Christ complete.  It is in this\nsense the 'fulfilment' of Christ, because without the Church He would\nbe a head without its members: and then the rest of the sentence should\nbe translated differently--'the church which is his body, the\nfulfilment of him who is fulfilled in all ways with all things.'  But\nthis is decidedly less agreeable to the general use of the expression\n'the fulness' in the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians[5].\n\n{83}\n\n[Sidenote: _Some practical lessons_]\n\nWe may also pause to recognize one or two ways in which St. Paul's view\nof the Christian religion, as exhibited in the opening of this epistle,\nsuggests special deficiencies among ourselves.\n\n(1) St. Paul's Christianity is a religion of thankfulness.  This\nepistle is a burst of exuberant praise.  Yet he was himself a prisoner,\nand the church of Ephesus, with the other Asiatic churches, was sorely\nthreatened with moral and spiritual perils of all kinds.  The secret of\nthis thankfulness is that he looks straight away from himself and his\nsurroundings up to God.  He measures the value of human life and work\nnot by what immediate experience suggests, but by what he knows of the\npurpose of God.  In spite of all the obstacles opposed by human\nwilfulness and weakness and sin, he knows that His purpose will effect\nitself: therefore he 'rejoices in the Lord always,' and no discouraging\ncircumstances can quench the springs of his rejoicing.  Our\nChristianity is apt to be of a very 'dutiful' kind.  We mean to do our\nduty, we attend church and go to our communions.  But our hearts are\nfull of the difficulties, the hardships, {84} the obstacles which the\nsituation presents, and we go on our way sadly, downhearted and\ndespondent.  We need to learn or learn anew from St. Paul that true\nChristianity is inseparable from deep joy; and the secret of that joy\nlies in a continual looking away from all else--away from sin and its\nways, and from the manifold hindrances to the good we would do--up to\nGod, His love, His purpose, His will.  In proportion as we do look up\nto Him we shall rejoice, and in proportion as we rejoice in the Lord\nwill our religion have tone and power and attractiveness.\n\n(2) St. Paul appeals to the Asiatic Christians not to become something\nthey are not, or to acquire some spiritual gift that they have not\nreceived, but simply to realize what they already are, and to claim the\nprivileges of their baptized state.  They are already 'adopted as\nsons[6].'  They have, like the Galatians, received 'the Spirit of\nadoption.'  The point now is that they should realize and put into\npractice what already belongs to them.  This mode of appeal is based on\nthe doctrine--in spite of its many perversions the most valuable\ndoctrine--of baptismal {85} regeneration.  The false method of\nappeal--as if careless Christians needed to _become_ sons of God--which\ninvolves a false idea of 'regeneration,' has been so much identified\nwith popular Protestantism, that I cannot do better than quote some\nvery apposite remarks by the late Congregationalist teacher, Dr. Dale,\nof blessed memory, from his noble commentary on this very epistle to\nthe Ephesians:--\n\n\n'This adoption of which Paul speaks is something more than a mere legal\nand formal act, conveying certain high prerogatives.  We are \"called\nthe sons of God\" because we are really made His sons by a new and\nsupernatural birth.  Regeneration is sometimes described as though it\nwere merely a change in a man's principles of conduct in his character,\nhis tastes, his habits.  The description is theologically false, and\npractically most pernicious and misleading.  If regeneration were\nnothing more than this, we should have to speak of a man as being more\nor less regenerate, according to the extent of his moral reformation;\nbut this would be contrary to the idiom of New Testament thought.  That\na great change in the moral region of a man's nature will certainly\nfollow regeneration is true; this change, however, is not regeneration\nitself, but the effect of regeneration; and the moral change which\nregeneration produces varies in many ways in different men.  In some\nthe change is immediate, decisive, and apparently complete.  In others\nit is extremely gradual, and may be for a long time hardly discernible.\nIn some regenerate men grave sins remain for a time unforsaken, perhaps\nunrecognized.  Look at these Ephesian Christians.  {86} The Apostle has\nto tell them that they must put away falsehood and speak the truth;\nthat they must give up thieving, and foul talk, and covetousness, and\ngross sensual sin.\n\n'He addresses them as \"saints.\"  He describes them as having been\nchosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and foreordained\nby God unto adoption as sons unto Himself; and yet he knows that they\nare in danger of committing these base and flagrant offences.  It was\nhard for them to escape from the vices of heathenism.  They were\nregenerate; but as yet, in some of them, the moral effects of\nregeneration were very incomplete, the change which regeneration was\nultimately certain to produce in their moral life had only begun, and\nit was checked and hindered by a thousand hostile influences.\n\n'The simplest and most obvious account of regeneration is the truest.\nWhen a man is regenerated he receives a new life and receives it from\nGod.  In itself regeneration is not a change in his old life, but the\nbeginning of a new life which is conferred by the immediate and\nsupernatural act of the Holy Spirit.  The man is really \"born again.\"\nA higher nature comes to him than that which he inherited from his\nhuman parents; he is \"begotten of God,\" \"born of the Spirit.\"'\n\n\nThis passage, especially as coming from Dr. Dale, supplies a very\nvaluable corrective to still current religious mistakes.  But surely we\nhave no ground for saying that the moral effects 'certainly' follow\nregeneration, or follow it in all cases.  It is not 'ultimately certain\nto produce' them in all persons, but only in those who {87} exhibit,\nsooner or later, the moral correspondence of a converted will.\n\n(3) Most Christians who have reacted from Calvinism and its false\ndoctrine of predestination have ceased to think about the truth which\nit represents.  But we need to make a right instead of a wrong use of\nthese great ideas of predestination and election, and thus to get rid\nof all the miserable narrowness and hopelessness which settles down\nupon us when we allow ourselves to think of religion as mainly a\nprocess of saving our own souls, and when we live only in our present\nfeelings.\n\nWhat can be more inspiring and strengthening than to believe that there\nis an eternal purpose of God working itself out in the universe through\nall its stages and parts; that this eternal purpose includes us, and\nhas fastened upon us individually and brought us into Christ and His\nChurch, to make true men of us; and that it has done all this not for\nour own sakes only, but to disclose something more of God's glory and\nfor the fulfilment of great and universal purposes, which are to\nradiate out even from us?  Wherever St. Paul sees the hand of God in\npresent experience, at once his mind works back to an eternal will and\ntherefore also {88} forward to an eternal and adequate result.  And\nthis backward and forward look transfigures the present with a new\nglory and a fresh hope.  So will it be with us if this same\ncharacteristically Christian way of looking at any apparent movement of\nGod in the present, in our own souls or in the world outside us,\nbecomes habitually and instinctively ours.  God never acts on a sudden\nimpulse or without purpose of continuance.  Certainly He can be trusted\nnot to stop and leave things unfinished.  When He hath begun any good\nwork He will assuredly perfect it, if we will let Him.\n\n\n\n[1] i. 8.\n\n[2] See Col. i. 19; ii. 9; cf. ii. 3, 'in Christ are all the treasures\nof wisdom and knowledge hidden.'\n\n[3] Eph. iii. 19; iv. 13.  It is not certain that by Him 'who filleth\nall in all' St. Paul does not mean the Father rather than the Son.  But\niv. 10 supports the interpretation given above.\n\n[4] Col. i. 19; Phil. ii. 9-11.\n\n[5] And the word rendered 'filleth' may have a middle and not a passive\nsense, the idea being perhaps suggested that God 'fills all things for\nhis own purpose.'\n\n[6] That is, they were 'predestined to an adoption' (Eph. i. 5) which\nit is implied they have already received.\n\n\n\n\n{89}\n\nDIVISION I.  Sec. 3.  CHAPTER II. 1-10.\n\n_Sin and redemption._\n\n[Sidenote: _The depth of sin_]\n\nIn the first chapter of the epistle, St. Paul has had before his eyes\nthe glory of God's redemptive work--the wonder of His purpose of pure\nlove for the universe through the Church.  His imagination has kindled\nat the thought of the length, the breadth, the height of the divine\noperation:--the length, for it is an eternal purpose slowly worked out\nthrough the ages; the breadth, for it is to extend over the whole\nuniverse; the height, for it is to carry men up to no lower point than\nthe throne of Christ in the heavenly places.  But now he stops to call\nthe attention of his converts to what we may call a 'fourth dimension'\nof the divine operation--its depth.  How wonderfully low God had\nstooped, in order to reach the point to which man had sunk!  The\nAsiatic Christians are bidden to ponder anew, and by {90} contrast to\ntheir present experience, the life which they had once lived before\nthey knew Christ or were found in Him.\n\nLet us read the apostle's words, and then consider them in detail:--\n\n\nAnd you _did he quicken_, when ye were dead through your trespasses and\nsins, wherein aforetime ye walked according to the course of this\nworld, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit\nthat now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all\nonce lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh\nand of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.\n\n\nWe naturally put as a parallel to these and other verses of this\nepistle (iv. 17-19) the terrible passage in Romans i, where St. Paul\ndescribes the developement of sin in the Gentile world; how it had its\norigin in the refusal of the human will to recognize God, how out of\nthe perversion of will it spread to the blinding of the understanding,\nand then to giving an overmastering power and an unnatural distortion\nto the passions, so that a state of moral lawlessness was produced and\nmaintained.\n\nWhat are we to say as to the truth of these accounts of the moral\ncondition of the heathen world?  No doubt there is a good deal to be\n{91} said on the other side.  Roman simplicity and virtue, and the\nsanctity of domestic life, had not, as contemporary inscriptions and\nhistorical records make perfectly evident, faded out of the Roman\nEmpire, and philanthropy and love of the poor were recognized\nexcellences.  Nor had philosophic virtue vanished from the schools[1].\nAnd all this St. Paul would not be slow to recognize.  In the Epistle\nto the Romans[2] itself he speaks in language, such as a Stoic might\nhave used, of those who, uninstructed by any special divine law, were a\nlaw unto themselves, in that they showed the practical effect of the\nlaw written in their hearts.  We must therefore recognize that St. Paul\nis, in the passage we are now considering, speaking ideally; that is to\nsay, he is speaking of the general tendency of the heathen life, just\nas he speaks ideally of the Christian church in view of its general\ntendency; and he is speaking of it as he mostly knew it himself in the\nnotoriously corrupt cities of the east, Antioch and Ephesus.  Ephesus,\nin particular, had an extraordinarily bad character for vice as much as\nfor superstition; and what {92} St. Paul says of the heathen life does\nnot in fact make up a stronger indictment or present a blacker picture\nthan what is said by a Stoic philosopher, perhaps his contemporary, who\nwrote at Ephesus, under the shelter of the name of the great Ephesian\nof ancient days, Heracleitus[3].  Moreover, St. Paul appeals\nunhesitatingly to the actual experience of these Asiatic Christians,\nand there is no reason to doubt that their consciences would have\nresponded to what he said to them about the old life out of which they\nhad been brought.\n\nLet us now analyze a little more exactly this account St. Paul gives of\nthe state of sin which he saw around him in contemporary society.\n\n(1) 'Ye walked according to the course of this world.'  By 'this world'\nSt. Paul, like the other New Testament writers, means practically human\nsociety as it organizes itself for its own purposes of pleasure or\nprofit without thought of God, or at least without thought of God as He\ntruly is.  These Asiatic Christians, then, had formerly ordered their\nlife and conduct according to the demands and expectations of the\nworldly world, obeying its motives, governed {93} by its fashions and\nits laws, and indifferent to those considerations which it repudiated\nor ignored.\n\n(2) But to belong to the world in this sense is, in St. Paul's mind, to\nbelong to the kingdom of Satan.  The worldly world had its origin from\na false desire of independence on man's part.  He did not want to be\ncontrolled by God; he wanted to live his own life for himself.  But in\nliberating himself according to his wishes from the control of God he\nfell, according to St. Paul's belief, under another control.  Rebellion\nhad been in the universe before man.  There are invisible rebel\nspirits, of whose real existence and influence St. Paul had no more\ndoubt than any other Jew who was not a Sadducee.  And, indeed, our Lord\nhad so spoken of good and evil spirits as to assure His disciples of\ntheir existence and influence.  These rebel wills are unseen by us and\nin most respects unknown, but they organize and give a certain\ncoherence and continuity to evil in the world.  There thus arises a\nsort of kingdom of evil over against the kingdom of God, and those who\nwill not surrender themselves to God and His kingdom, become perforce\nservants of Satan and his kingdom.  It is in view of this truth that\nSt. Paul {94} tells these Asiatic Christians that they used to walk\naccording 'to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now\nworketh in the sons of disobedience.'  (These evil spirits were, by a\nnatural way of thinking, located in the air, according to the\ncontemporary Jewish ideas; and the idea is, if nothing more, a\nconvenient metaphor for a subtle and pervading influence.)  This view\nof their old life, as a bondage to evil spirits, is one which would be\nas easily realized by inhabitants of Asiatic cities, where men were\nlargely occupied in finding charms against bad spirits, as by modern\nIndian converts from devil-worship.  Christianity recognizes a basis of\nreality in the superstition from which at the same time it delivers men.\n\n(3) The main characteristic of this old godless life had been\nlawlessness, but St. Paul here, as in his Epistle to the Romans,\nassociates Jews with Gentiles, 'we' with 'you,' in the same\ncondemnation.  The spirits, or real selves of the Christians, had been,\nin their former state, dominated by their appetites or their\nimaginations.  They were occupied in doing what their flesh or their\nthoughts suggested.  It is noticeable that St. Paul puts 'the mind'\nside by side with 'the flesh' as a cause of sin, the intellectual {95}\nside by side with the sensual and emotional nature.  We often in fact,\nin our age, have experience of people who are not 'sensual' in the\nordinary sense, but who live lives which have no goodness, no\nperseverance, no order, no fruitfulness in them, because they are the\nslaves of the ideas of their own mind as they present themselves, now\none, now another; unregulated ideas being in fact, just as much as\nunregulated passions, fluctuating, arbitrary, and tyrannous.  Nothing\nis more truly needed to-day than the discipline of the imagination.\n\n(4) Men living such a life of bondage are described further as 'dead\nthrough their trespasses and sins.'  St. Paul means by death to\ndescribe any state of intellectual and moral insensibility.  He would\nhave the Christian 'dead' to the motives and voices of the worldly and\nsensual world.  So in the same way he reminds the Asiatic Christians\nthat to all that life of God in which they were now fruitfully living,\nthey had at one time been insensible or dead--that is, blind to those\nthings which now seemed most apparent, unterrified at what would now\nseem most horrible, unmoved by what now seemed most fascinating.  And\nif this was their state viewed in itself, in their relation to God {96}\nthey were, like the Jews also, 'children of wrath.'  This expression is\nused in our catechism to describe 'original sin,' that is to say, that\nmoral disorder or weakness which belongs to our nature as we inherit\nit, before we have had the opportunity of personal wrong doing.  But\nthe application of the phrase by St. Paul is to describe rather the\nstate of _actual_ sin in which Jew and Gentile alike 'naturally' lived.\nIt implies not that God hated them, for in the whole context St. Paul\nis emphasizing 'the great love wherewith he loved them'; but that there\nwas a necessary moral incompatibility between them as they then were,\nand God as He essentially and permanently is.  God is so necessarily\nholy that His being is, and must be, intolerable to the unholy.  It\nmust be the case that at the bare idea of the divine coming, 'sinners\nin Zion' should be 'afraid,' and should say one to another, 'who among\nus shall dwell with the devouring fire, who among us shall dwell with\neverlasting burnings[4]?'  God necessarily presents Himself as a terror\nto the godless; and from the point of view of God that means that our\nsinful nature is the subject of His necessary wrath.  He resents the\n{97} perversion, the spoiling, of His own handiwork in us.  He cannot\ntolerate uncleanness, rebellion, unbelief.  This wrath of God, in the\ncase of those whose wills are set to 'hate the light,' is directed\nagainst men's persons.  But so far as sin is only in our natures, and\nis something of which we are the unwilling subjects, it appeals only to\nGod's compassion to lead Him to apply effective remedies.  His wrath is\nso far against sin, not against sinners; and none could know better\nthan these Asiatic Christians what lengths of resourcefulness and\nself-sacrifice the divine compassion had gone in order to redeem men\nfrom its tyranny.  Thus St. Paul continues:--\n\n\nBut God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,\neven when we were dead through our trespasses, quickened us together\nwith Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him,\nand made us to sit with him in the heavenly _places_, in Christ Jesus:\nthat in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his\ngrace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: for by grace have ye been\nsaved through faith; and that not of yourselves: _it is_ the gift of\nGod: not of works, that no man should glory.  For we are his\nworkmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore\nprepared that we should walk in them.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _The method of redemption_]\n\nHere is St. Paul's description of the method of God in dealing with men\nwhen they were in {98} that state of sin, the conditions of which he\nhas just summarised.  We take note of the chief points in the method.\n\n(1) St. Paul has in mind here, as always, the divine predestination.\nThere was an eternal purpose in the divine mind to make St. Paul and\nthose to whom he wrote such as they were now on the way to become; it\nwas a purpose not merely general, but extending to details.  It\nbelongs, in fact, to the divine perfection, that God does nothing, and\npurposes nothing, in mere vague generality.  The universal range and\nscope of the divine activity as over all creatures whatsoever, hinders\nnot at all its perfect application to detail.  Thus God had\n'predestined,' or held in His eternal purpose, not merely the state of\nChristians as a whole or even of the Asiatic Christians in particular,\nbut the details of conduct which He willed them individually to\nexhibit.  It is the particular 'good works' which God 'prepared\nbeforehand in order that they should walk in them[5].'\n\n(2) What God predestined He accomplished first in summary 'in Christ\nJesus.'  In Him all that God meant to do for man was exhibited {99} and\naccomplished as God's own and perfect handiwork, as an effective and\nfinal disclosure.  Men are to look for everything, for every kind of\ndevelopment and progress, in Christ, but for nothing outside or beyond\nHim.  All is there--'all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' all\n'the fulness of the Godhead,' all the perfections of mankind, the\nreconciliation of all seeming opposites.  All is brought to the highest\npossible level of attainment, 'the heavenly place.'\n\n(3) What had been summarily realized in Christ is progressively\nrealized in those who are 'in Him.'  Undeterred by their condition of\nmoral and spiritual death, God, out of the heart of His rich mercy,\nsimply because of the great love He bore to men, has brought them, by\none act of regeneration, into the new life of His Son; has 'quickened\nthem together with Christ,' that is, has introduced them, at a definite\nmoment of initiation, into the life which has once for all triumphed\nover death, and been glorified in the heavenly places; and has\nintroduced them into this life in order that, by the gradual\nassimilation of its forces, future ages might witness in them all the\nwealth of the goodness which had lain hid in the original act {100} of\nincorporation.  Meanwhile, while their growth is yet imperfect, God\nsees those who are Christ's as 'in Christ': imputes His merits to them,\nso we may legitimately say: that is, sees them and deals with them in\nview of the fact that Christ's Spirit is at work in them; sees them and\ndeals with them 'not as they are, but as they are becoming.'  _This_\ndoctrine of imputation, instead of being full of moral unreality, is in\naccordance with all that is deepest in the philosophy of evolution.\nFor are we not continually being taught that in order to take a true\nview of the value of any single thing, we must view it not as it is at\na particular moment, but in the light of its tendency?  We must ask not\nmerely 'what,' but 'whence' and 'whither.'\n\n(4) It is all pure grace--the free outpouring of unmerited love.  The\nChristians are 'God's workmanship,' His new creation.  He, in Christ,\nhad wrought the work all by Himself.  They, the subjects of it, had\ncontributed nothing.  It remained for them only to welcome and to\ncorrespond.  This is the summing up of man's legitimate attitude\ntowards God.  This is faith.  It is at its first stage simply the\nacceptance of a divine mercy in all its undeserved and unconditional\nlargeness; but it passes at once, as {101} soon as ever the nature of\nthe divine gift is realized, into a glad co-operation with the divine\npurpose.\n\nThis then is, in outline, the method of the great salvation, of which\nthe Asiatic Christians had been and were the subjects.\n\n\n\n[1] On the virtuous aspect of the contemporary empire, see Renan, _Les\nApotres_, pp. 306 ff.\n\n[2] Rom. ii. 14.\n\n[3] See app. note B, p. 255.\n\n[4] Is. xxxiii. 14, 15.\n\n[5] Cf. app. note C, p. 263, for a similar thought in a contemporary\nJewish book.\n\n\n\n\n{102}\n\nDIVISION I.  Sec. 4.  CHAPTER II. 11-22.\n\n_Salvation in the church._\n\n[Sidenote: _The salvation social_]\n\nGod's deliverance or 'salvation' of mankind is a deliverance of\nindividuals indeed, but of individuals in and through a society; not of\nisolated individuals, but of members of a body.\n\nIt is and has been a popular religious idea that the primary aim of the\ngospel is to produce saved individuals; and that it is a matter of\nsecondary importance that the saved individuals should afterwards\ncombine to form churches for their mutual spiritual profit, and for\npromoting the work of preaching the gospel.  But this way of conceiving\nthe matter is a reversal of the order of ideas in the Bible.  'The\nsalvation' in the Bible is supposed usually 'to reach the individual\nthrough the community[1].'  God's dealings with us in redemption thus\nfollow the lines of His dealings with us in our natural developement.\nFor man stands {103} out in history as a 'social animal.'  His\nindividual developement, by a divine law of his constitution, is only\nrendered possible because he is first of all a member of some society,\ntribe, or nation, or state.  Through membership in such a society\nalone, and through the submissions and limitations on his personal\nliberty which such membership involves, does he become capable of any\ndegree of free or high developement as an individual.  This law, then,\nof man's nature appears equally in the method of his redemption.  Under\nthe old covenant it was to members of the 'commonwealth of Israel' that\nthe blessings of the covenant belonged.  Under the new covenant St.\nPaul still conceives of the same commonwealth as subsisting (as we\nshall see directly), and as fulfilling no less than formerly the same\nreligious functions.  True, it has been fundamentally reconstituted and\nenlarged to include the believers of all nations, and not merely one\nnation; but it is still the same commonwealth, or polity, or church;\nand it is still through the church that God's 'covenant' dealings reach\nthe individual.\n\nIt is for this reason that St. Paul goes on to describe the state of\nthe Asiatic Christians, {104} before their conversion, as a state of\nalienation from the 'commonwealth of Israel.'  They were 'Gentiles in\nthe flesh,' that is by the physical fact that they were not Jews; and\nwere contemptuously described as the uncircumcised by those who, as\nJews, were circumcised by human hands.  And he conceives this to be\nonly another way of describing alienation from God and His manifold\ncovenants of promise, and from the Messiah, the hope of Israel and of\nmankind.  They were without the Church of God, and therefore presumably\nwithout God and without hope.\n\n\nWherefore remember, that aforetime ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who\nare called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the\nflesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ,\nalienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the\ncovenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.\nBut now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the\nblood of Christ.\n\n\nThis alienation of Gentiles from the divine covenant was represented in\nthe structure of the temple at Jerusalem by a beautifully-worked marble\nbalustrade, separating the outer from the inner court, upon which stood\ncolumns at regular intervals, bearing inscriptions, some in Greek and\nsome in Latin characters, to warn {105} aliens not to enter the holy\nplace.  One of the Greek inscriptions was discovered a few years ago,\nand is now to be read in the Museum of Constantinople.  It runs thus:\n'No alien to pass within the balustrade round the temple and the\nenclosure.  Whosoever shall be caught so doing must blame himself for\nthe penalty of death which he will incur.'\n\nThis 'middle wall of partition' was vividly in St. Paul's memory.  He\nwas in prison at Rome at the time of his writing this epistle, in part\nat least because he was believed to have brought Trophimus, an\nEphesian, within the sacred enclosure at Jerusalem.  'He brought Greeks\nalso into the temple, and hath defiled the holy place.'\n\nIt was this 'middle wall of partition,' representing the exclusiveness\nof Jewish ordinances, which St. Paul rejoiced to believe Christ had\nabolished.  He had made Jew and Gentile one by bringing both alike to\nGod in one body and on a new basis.\n\nThere were in fact two partitions in the Jewish temple of great\nsymbolical importance.  There was the veil which hid the holy of\nholies, and symbolized the alienation of man from God[2]; and there was\n'the middle wall of partition' {106} already described, representing\nthe exclusion of the world from the privileges of the people of God.\nThe Pharisaic Jews ignored the spiritual lessons of the first\npartition, and devoutly believed in the permanence of the second.  But\nSaul, while yet a Pharisee, had felt the reality of the first, and had\nfound in his own experience that the abolition of this first barrier by\nChrist involved also the annihilation of the second.\n\n[Sidenote: _The breaking down of partitions_]\n\nIt is in the Epistle to the Colossians that he lays stress upon the\nabolition in Christ of the enmity between man and God.  'It was the\ngood pleasure of the Father ... through him to reconcile all things\nunto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross.'  'You,\nbeing dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh\n... did he quicken together with Christ, having forgiven us all our\ntrespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was\nagainst us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the\nway, nailing it to the cross.'  So with the help of various metaphors\ndoes St. Paul strive to express the mighty truth that, by the shedding\nof Christ's blood, that is to say by His sacrifice of perfected\nobedience, the way had been opened for the forgiveness of our sins and\nour {107} reconciliation to God in one life, one Spirit.  But the\nsymbols and instruments of that former alienation from God which St.\nPaul had experienced so bitterly, were to his mind the 'ordinances' of\nthe Jewish law.  These, he had come to feel, had no other function than\nto awaken and deepen the sense of sin which they were powerless to\novercome.  They were nothing but 'a bond written against us'; a\ncontinual record of condemnation.  To trust in the observance of\nordinances was to remain an unreconciled sinner, alienated in mind and\nunpurified in heart.  On the other hand, to have faith in Jesus and\nreceive from Him the unmerited gift of the divine pardon and the Spirit\nof sonship was, for a Jew, to cast away all that trust in the\nobservance of the ordinances of his nation which was so dear to his\nheart.  It was at once to place himself among the sinners of the\nGentiles.  For in Jesus Christ all men were indeed brought near to God,\nbut not as meritorious Jews; rather as common men and common sinners,\nneeding and accepting all alike the undeserved mercy of a heavenly\nFather.  Thus it was that Christ, in breaking down one partition, had\nbroken down the other also.  In opening the way to God by a simple\nhuman trust in a {108} heavenly Father, and not by the complicated\narrangements of a special law, He had put all men on the same level of\nneed and of acceptance.  He had not indeed abolished the covenant or\nthe covenant people, but He had enlarged its area and altered its\nbasis: there was still to be one visible body or people of the\ncovenant, but membership in it was to be open to all, Jew and Gentile\nalike, who would feel their need of and put their trust in Jesus.  This\nis what St. Paul proceeds to express, and little more need be added to\nexplain his words.  In the 'blood' or 'blood-shedding' of Jesus--that\nis, His self-sacrifice for men, His obedience carried to the point of\nthe surrender of His life--a way had been opened to the Father that was\npurely human, that belonged to the Gentiles who had been 'far off' as\nwell as to Jews who were already 'nigh' in the divine covenant.  And in\nbeing brought near to God by faith, and not by Jewish ordinances, Jew\nand Gentile had been reconciled on a common basis--the two had been\nmade one in 'the flesh,' that is, the manhood of Christ, for no other\nreason than because the 'law of commandments contained in (special\nJewish) ordinances,' which had hitherto been the basis of separation,\nwas now once for all {109} 'abolished.'  Henceforth there was one new\nman, or new manhood, in Christ, in which all men were, potentially at\nleast, reconciled to God and to one another by His self-sacrifice upon\nthe cross.  And to the knowledge of this new manhood all men were being\ngradually brought by the 'preaching of peace' or of the gospel, which\nhad its origin from Jesus crucified and risen, and which, even now that\nJesus was invisibly acting through His apostolic and other ministers,\nSt. Paul attributes directly to Him.\n\n[Sidenote: _The admission of Gentiles_]\n\n\nBut now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the\nblood of Christ.  For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake\ndown the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the\nenmity, even the law of commandments _contained_ in ordinances; that he\nmight create in himself of the twain one new man, so making peace; and\nmight reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross,\nhaving slain the enmity thereby: and he came and preached peace to you\nthat were far off, and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we\nboth have our access in one Spirit unto the Father.\n\n\nNow we can turn from the negative to the positive statement, and\nobserve what St. Paul says of the new privileges of the once heathen\nconverts.  He pictures them under four metaphors, each describing a\nsocial state.\n\n{110}\n\n(1) They are citizens in the holy state, the commonwealth of the people\nconsecrated to God--citizens with full rights, and no longer strangers\nor unenfranchised residents (sojourners).\n\n(2) More intimately still, they belong to the family or household of\nGod.\n\n(3) They are being built all together into a sanctuary for God to dwell\nin--a holy structure of which the foundation stones are the apostles,\nand the Christian prophets who were their companions; and of which the\ncorner-stone, determining the lines of the building and compacting it\ninto one, is Jesus Christ, according to the word of God by Isaiah,\n'Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious\ncorner stone of sure foundation.'\n\n(4) But the metaphor of the building passes into the metaphor of the\ngrowing plant.  Christ is, as St. Peter says, 'a _living_ stone[3].'\nHe not only determines the lines of the spiritual structure, but He\npervades the whole of it as a presence and spirit, so that every other\nhuman 'stone' is also alive and growing with His life.\n\n\nSo then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are\nfellow-citizens with the saints, and of the {111} household of God,\nbeing built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ\nJesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several\nbuilding, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the\nLord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in\nthe Spirit.\n\n\nThese are indeed metaphors expressive of glorious realities, which have\nno doubt become dulled in meaning through a conventional Christianity,\nwhich involves no sacrifice and therefore attains no sense of\nblessedness, but which a little meditation may easily restore to\nsomething of their original freshness.\n\n(1) The idea of the chosen people all through the Old Testament is that\nthey are as a whole consecrated to God.  Priests and kings appointed by\nGod to their several offices may indeed fulfil special functions in the\nnational life, yet the fundamental idea is never lost that the entire\nnation is holy, 'a kingdom of priests.'  It is because this is true\nthat the prophets can appeal as they do to the people in general, as\nwell as to priests and rulers, as sharing altogether the responsibility\nof the national life.  Now the whole of this idea is transferred, only\ndeepened and intensified, to the Christian Church.  That too has its\ndivinely-ordained ministers, its differentiation of functions in the\none body, but the whole {112} body is priestly, and all are\ncitizens--not merely residents but citizens, that is, intelligent\nparticipators in a common corporate life consecrated to God.  How truly\nrealized this idea was in the early Christian communities, St. Paul's\nletters are our best witnesses.  They are really--except the pastoral\nepistles--letters to the churches and not to the clergy.  It is the\nwhole body which is at Thessalonica and Corinth to concern itself with\nthe exercise of moral discipline[4]--the whole body in the Galatian\nchurches and at Colossae who are to concern themselves with the\napprehension and protection of the full Christian truth.  They are all\nto be 'perfectly initiated' in Christ Jesus, full participators in the\naffairs of the divine society[5].  Whatever needs to be said afterwards\nabout the special functions of special officers, this is the first\nthing to be said and recognized; and it gives us a profound sense of\nthe distance we have fallen from our ideal.  The laity, it is generally\nunderstood among us, are to come to church and perhaps to communion,\nare to accept the ministries of religion at marriages and funerals, and\nare to subscribe a little money to religious objects; but they may\nleave it to the clergy, as a matter of course, to carry on {113} the\nbusiness of religion--that is, worship and doctrine, for discipline has\nbeen dropped out--and confine themselves to a certain amount of\nirresponsible criticism of the sermons of the clergy and their\nproceedings generally.\n\n[Sidenote: _The catholic church_]\n\nFor this state of things--this very false sacerdotalism--the\nresponsibility is generally laid at the door of 'clerical arrogance.'\nIt is not necessary to consider how large a factor in the result\nclerical arrogance has really been, for certainly what alone has given\nthe clergy the opportunity to put themselves in false isolation, and\nwhat has been an immensely more powerful factor in the general result,\nhas been the spiritual apathy of the mass of church members, an apathy\nwhich began as soon as the Christian profession began to cost men\nlittle or nothing.\n\nAre we to set to work to revive St. Paul's ideal of the life of a\nChurch?  If so, what we need is not more Christians, but better\nChristians.  We want to make the moral meaning of church membership\nunderstood and its conditions appreciated.  We want to make men\nunderstand that it costs something to be a Christian; that to be a\nChristian, that is a Churchman, is to be an intelligent participator in\na corporate life consecrated to God, and to concern {114} oneself\ntherefore, as a matter of course, in all that touches the corporate\nlife--its external as well as its spiritual conditions.  For the houses\npeople live in, their wages, their social and commercial relations to\none another, their amusements, the education they receive, the\nliterature they read, these, no less truly than religious forces\nstrictly so called, affect intimately the health and well-being of any\nsociety of men.  We Christians are fellow-citizens together in the\ncommonwealth that is consecrated to God, a commonwealth of mortal men\nwith bodies as well as souls.\n\n(2) But St. Paul also describes the Church as the 'household of God.'\nWhen our Lord was speaking to St. Peter about the ministry which was\nbeing entrusted to the apostles, He said to him, 'Who then is the\nfaithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall set over his household to\ngive them their portion of food in due season[6]?'  This description\nopens to us part of the meaning of the divine household.  A household\nis a place where a family is provided for, where there is a regular and\norderly supply of ordinary needs.  And the Church is the divine\nhousehold in which God has provided stewards to make {115} regular\nspiritual provision for men, so that they shall feel and know\nthemselves members of a family, understood, sympathized with, helped,\nencouraged, disciplined, fed.  What in fact are the sacraments and\nsacramental rites, what are baptism, confirmation and communion,\nmarriage and ordination, the administration of the word of God, the\ndealings with the penitent, the sick, the dead, but the 'portions of\nfood in due season,' the orderly distribution of the bread of life in\nthe family or household of God?\n\nBut there is another idea which, in St. Paul's mind, attaches itself\nstrongly to the idea of the 'divine family.'  It is that in this\nhousehold we are sons and not servants--that is intelligent\nco-operators with God, and not merely submissive slaves.  It is\nnoticeable how often he speaks with horror of Christians allowing\nthemselves again to be 'subject to ordinances,' or to 'the weak and\nbeggarly rudiments,' the alphabet of that earlier education when even\nchildren are treated as slaves under mere obedience.  'Ye observe days,\nand months, and seasons, and years, I am afraid of you[7].'  'Why do ye\nsubject yourselves to ordinances, handle not, taste not, touch not[8].'\nIt is perfectly true to say that what {116} St. Paul is deprecating is\na return to Jewish or pagan observances.  But this is not all.  He\ndemands not a change of observance only, but a change of spirit.  Their\nattitude towards observances as such is to be different.  Not that St.\nPaul does not insist on that readiness to obey reasonable authority\nwhich is a condition of corporate life, or would hesitate to lay stress\nupon corporate religious acts in the Christian body.  The truth is very\nfar from that.  'We have no such custom, neither the churches of God,'\nis an argument which ought to be sufficient to suppress eccentricity.\nTo 'keep the traditions' is a mark of a good Christian[9].  'A man that\nis heretical' (or rather 'factious') after the first and second\nadmonition is to be 'refused'[10].  Government is to be a constant\nelement in the Christian life.  But the character of authority and of\nobedience is to be changed.  The authority is to be reasonable\nauthority, and the obedience intelligent obedience.  Passive obedience\nto an authority which does not explain itself, whether in a spiritual\ndirector or in the Church as a whole, St. Paul would have thought of\nmeanly as a Christian virtue.  And the multiplication of authoritative\nobservances he would have dreaded as a {117} bondage.  Our Lord was\nvery unwilling to give His disciples, when He was on earth, much\ndirection.  And St. Paul is true to his Master's spirit.  Our life\nshould be ordered by principles, rather than directed in detail.  For\nto rely upon direction from outside dwarfs our sense of personal\nresponsibility, and personal relationship to the divine Spirit.  A\ncertain amount of confusion, hesitation, difference, due to men feeling\ntheir way, due to their different individualities having free scope,\nSt. Paul would apparently have thought preferable to that sort of order\nwhich is the product of a very strong and exacting external government,\nand to an undue exaltation of the virtue of passive obedience.\n\n(3) St. Paul describes the Church as a sanctuary which is gradually to\nbe built for God to dwell in.  We remember how our Lord had said of the\ntemple at Jerusalem, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will\nraise it up.'  'He spake,' St. John explains, 'of the temple of his\nbody[11].'  That--His own humanity proved triumphant over death--was to\nbe henceforth the tabernacle of God's presence among men.  Where that\nis God is, and the true worship of the Father in spirit and in truth.\nBut that body, raised again {118} the third day and become 'quickening\nSpirit' as the body of the risen Christ, takes within its influence the\nwhole circle of believers.  The 'body of Christ,' which is God's\ntemple, comes to mean the Church which lives in Christ's life, and\nworships in Christ's Spirit.  This is still the Church of the fathers\nof the old covenant, but fundamentally reconstituted.  God, as St.\nJames perceived[12], was fulfilling His promise to 'build again the\ntabernacle of David which had fallen.'  It was being built anew upon\nthe apostles and their companions the prophets, the immediate\nambassadors of Christ, as foundation-stones of the renewed building,\nwho themselves have their positions determined and secured by Christ\nJesus as chief corner-stone.  It was a spiritual fabric combining, like\na Gothic cathedral, various parts or 'several buildings,' with their\ndistinctive characteristics, all however united in one construction,\none great sanctuary of a redeemed humanity in which God dwells.\n\nThe metaphor suggests the combination of national and individual\ndifferences in real unity.  It encourages us to pay due regard to the\nfree developement of our own characters and capacities, but also to\ndevelope ourselves as parts of {119} a greater whole, always\nremembering that the work of a Christian individual or a local church\nis in God's sight measured, not by its isolated result, but by the\ncontribution it makes to the life of the whole body.  An eccentric\nindividuality, a schismatic developement is, even in proportion to its\nstrength, a source of weakness to the whole.  By its relation to the\nwhole life of the Church all Christian effort must be both invigorated\nand restrained.\n\nThe metaphor suggests further that the social organization of the\nChurch is an organization for worship.  It is a house and a\ncitizenship, because it is also a sanctuary.  The strength of corporate\nChristianity is to be measured by the vitality of corporate worship.  A\nchurch life in which the eucharist is not the centre, for all the\nvigour which it may show in learning, or preaching, or philanthropy, is\nafter all but a maimed life.\n\n(4) But the Church, as a visible organization of men, can be what it\nis--the city of God, His household and His sanctuary--only because it\nis pervaded by Christ's life and spirit.  The 'stones of the building'\nare not merely placed side by side of one another, or held together by\nany external agency of government; they {120} are as branches of a\nliving tree, limbs of a living body.  In this recurrent thought, which\nwill be presented to us in another form when St. Paul comes to speak of\nthe head and the body, is the interpretation of all his theory of the\nChurch.  It is verily and indeed the extension of the life of Christ.\n\n\nHow are we to receive this great and manifold ideal of what the Church\nmeans[13]?  It is by meditating upon it till St. Paul's\nconceptions--and not any lower or narrower ones, Roman or Anglican or\nNonconformist--become vivid to our minds.  Then, knowing what we aim at\nrestoring, we shall seek, in each parish and ecclesiastical centre, to\nconcentrate almost more than to extend the Church, to give it\nspiritual, moral, and social reality, rather than to multiply a\nmembership which means little.  For if men can understand the meaning\nof the Church, as the city of God, the family of God, the sanctuary of\nGod, in the world, there is little fear that whatever is good in\nhumanity will fail of allegiance to her.  The kings of the earth will\nbring their glory and honour into her, and the nations of the earth\nshall walk in her light.\n\n\n\n[1] Sanday and Headlam's _Romans_, pp. 122-124.\n\n[2] Hebr. ix. 8.\n\n[3] 1 Peter ii. 4.\n\n[4] 1 Thess. v. 14; 1 Cor. v.-vi. 11.\n\n[5] Col. i. 28.\n\n[6] Luke xii. 42.\n\n[7] Gal. iv. 11; v. 1.\n\n[8] Col. ii. 20-22.\n\n[9] Cor. xi. 2, 16.\n\n[10] Tit. iii. 10.\n\n[11] John ii. 19-21.\n\n[12] Acts xv. 16.\n\n[13] See app. note D, p. 264, on the Brotherhood of St. Andrew.\n\n\n\n\n{121}\n\nDIVISION I.  Sec. 5.  CHAPTER III.\n\n_Paul the apostle of catholicity._\n\n[Sidenote: _Paul the apostle of catholicity_]\n\nSt. Paul has unfolded the dimensions of the revelation of God given in\nthe catholic church.  The interests of the whole of mankind and of the\nwhole universe which it is to subserve--that is its breadth: the\neternal and slowly realized intention of God of which it is the\nexpression--that is its length: the spiritual elevation up to which it\ntakes men--that is its height: the gulf of sin and misery from which it\nrescues them--that is its depth.  And now he is about to press upon the\nAsiatic Christians the moral obligations which this great catholic\nbrotherhood involves.  He begins his exhortation and enforces it by\nreminding them of what he was enduring as a prisoner for Christ's\nsake--'For this cause (i.e. seeing that all this is true), I, Paul, the\nprisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you, the Gentiles.'  But when he\nhas thus made a beginning, he pauses to add weight {122} to his appeal\nby emphasizing a personal but very important consideration.  The\nparticular truth of the catholicity of the Church had been in quite a\nspecial sense entrusted to him, Paul, personally, as apostle of the\nGentiles.  He assumes that they have heard of this, his special\ncommission, and that it was the subject of a special revelation to\nhimself[1].  Indeed the fact must have formed part of his teaching at\nEphesus and throughout Asia, for his mind was full of it; he had\ncontended for it against strong opposition in his epistle to the\nGalatians[2]; he had asserted it in his speech on the occasion of his\nbeing made a prisoner at Jerusalem: and he had quite recently explained\nit 'in brief compass' in the letter to the Colossians which was\nintended to have, in part at least, the same readers as his present\nepistle[3].  This special revelation then and accompanying commission\njustifies him in particular, and more than any of {123} the other\napostles, in pressing upon his converts the doctrine which forms the\nspecial topic of this epistle.\n\nBut to think of his special office as apostle of a catholic society, is\nto think also of its extraordinary difficulty.\n\n[Sidenote: _The difficulty of catholicity_]\n\nWhen we set ourselves in our own later age to rehabilitate the sense of\nchurch membership, we feel at once the strength of the forces against\nus; we realize how much the feeling of blood-kinship in the family\ncounts for, or the wider kinship of national life, or the common\ninterests of our professions or our classes, compared to the feeble\nsense of fellowship which comes from a church membership which is so\nlargely conventional.  Most assuredly we feel the difficulty of what we\nhave in hand.  But we cannot feel it more intensely than St. Paul felt\nthe difficulty involved in the very idea of a human brotherhood in\nwhich national distinctions were obliterated.  After all, the degree of\nunity impressed by the Roman Empire upon the different nations it\nembraced was superficial.  On the whole it left men to walk in their\nown ways.  In particular it did not succeed in breaking down the\nbarriers of Jewish isolation.  A society in which men should be neither\nJews nor {124} Gentiles, Greeks nor barbarians, bond nor free, but all\nshould be welded into one manhood by the pressure of a common and\nconstraining bond of brotherhood--a society in which even the savage\nand brutal Scythian should have equal fellowship with Greeks and\nJews[4]--represented what had never yet been accomplished, and what the\nmost sanguine might reasonably have thought impossible.  The history of\nthe Church, though not yet much more than thirty years old, had served\nalready to emphasize the difficulty of the undertaking.  We read the\nrecord of the first Jerusalem Church with its communism of love and\nsympathy, and it seems the perfect realization of the Christian spirit\nof brotherhood.  So it was, but under comparatively easy conditions.\nFor all that community were Jews with common traditions, sympathies,\nhabits, ways of looking at things.  They could behave as brethren, in\nthe glow of their fresh enthusiasm at finding that the long-expected\nkingdom of Christ was now an actual fact, and its triumph to be\nimmediately expected, without any real bridging of the gulfs which yawn\nbetween different sorts of men.  That these gulfs still remained to be\nbridged soon appeared.  It became manifest that {125} Gentiles,\n'sinners of the Gentiles,' had to be received into Christian\nbrotherhood upon equal terms, and without their accepting the Jewish\nlaw and customs.  The Council at Jerusalem attempted a compromise by\nrequiring of the Gentile converts certain accommodations to Jewish\nmanners.  But the compromise did not avail to overcome the difficulty.\nSt. Paul found the centre of opposition to the equal admission of the\nGentiles in that very Church of Jerusalem which had been previously\nforemost in the race of love.  In fact, the true difficulty of the law\nof brotherhood only then appeared when the obligation to fuse\ninveterate national distinctions began to be enforced.  Then indeed\nflesh and blood rebelled.  Without going any further than this single\npiece of Christian experience, there is every reason why St. John\nshould warn Christians that the old commandment, 'ye shall love one\nanother,' is constantly, with every change of circumstance, becoming 'a\nnew commandment,' involving new difficulties, and challenging afresh\nthe efforts of the human will[5].  The same difficulty, only in a less\nacute form, is in St. Paul's mind, and makes him measure and weigh his\nwords, when he writes to Philemon {126} to beg him to receive his\nformer runaway slave, 'no longer as a slave, but as a brother\nbeloved[6].'\n\nAnd we cannot but pause and ask, in view of all the moral discipline\nfor men of various kinds which St. Paul sees to be involved in the\nsimple obligation to belong to one Christian body[7],--what would have\nbeen his feelings if he had heard of the doctrine which cuts at the\nroot of all this discipline by declaring that religion is only\nconcerned with the relation of the soul to God, and that Christians may\ncombine as they please in as many religious bodies as suits their\nvarying tastes?\n\nThis difficulty in the very idea of a catholic brotherhood of men\nexplains the extraordinary earnestness with which St. Paul proceeds to\nemphasize that indeed this, and nothing less than this, is the divine\nmystery (or 'secret'), which, held back from all eternity in the mind\nof God, was only now being disclosed through Christ's consecrated\nmessengers, and specially through St. Paul himself, the apostle of the\nGentiles.  The incredible nature of the idea clogs St. Paul's language,\nand almost makes shipwreck of his grammar.  All the depth of Christian\ndoctrine is necessary as background {127} to recommend and justify this\notherwise entirely 'supernatural' ideal--this marvellous climax of the\nworkings and revelations of God.  The spectacle of a catholic\nbrotherhood, with all that it promises of universal unity beyond\nitself, is a lesson even to the angels of what the manifold wisdom of\nGod can conceive and accomplish.\n\nWe have got into a habit of talking about the 'brotherhood of man' as\nif it was an easy and obvious truth.  All our experience of our English\nrelations with races of a different colour to our own, nay, all our\nexperience of class divisions at home, might have served to check this\neasy-going sort of language.  If we will consent to pause and reflect\non the actual difficulty of behaving or feeling as brethren should\nbehave and feel towards men of other races and of other educations and\nhabits than our own, we may be more inclined to believe that it is only\nthrough some fundamental eradication of selfishness and inherent\nnarrowness that it can be made possible; only when we begin to live\nfrom some centre greater than ourselves.  And that is the moral meaning\nof the constant doctrine of the New Testament, that only through being\nreconciled to God can we be reconciled to one {128} another--only in\nChrist that men can permanently and satisfactorily learn to love one\nanother, when racial and educational and personal antipathies make for\nseparation and not for unity.\n\nNow perhaps we are in a position to read with greater intelligence what\nSt. Paul wrote about 'the dispensation of the divine mystery,' i.e.\n'the stewardship of the divine secret,' of the brotherhood of all men\nin Christ or the catholicity of the Church, which had been committed to\nhim by the 'revelation' which followed his conversion to Christ[8].\n\nThe doctrine of the brotherhood of men is in fact as much a peculiarly\nChristian doctrine as that of divine sonship, and both alike are, in\nthe New Testament language, represented as realized only within the\ncommunity of the baptized.  The facts of New Testament language compel\nus to say and to recognize this[9].  But {129} we are bound to\nrecognize also that they are truths which, when they are heard, are\nwelcomed by the natural conscience everywhere.  For as all men are\n'God's offspring[10],' by the very fact of their creation as men, so\nthey are fitted to receive the privilege of sonship: and as they are\n'made of one[11],' so they are fitted to realize the privilege of\nbrotherhood.  It is but to say the same thing in other words, if we\ninsist that Christians are the elect body, to realize and express among\nmen an idea of human nature which is the only true idea, and which,\noverlaid and forgotten as it may have been, has never ceased to stir in\nman's heart and conscience everywhere.  The elect are elected for no\nother purpose than to make manifest what all men are capable of\nbecoming, and, if they will obey God, are destined to become.\n\n\nFor this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you\nGentiles,--if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that\ngrace of God which was given me to you-ward; how that by revelation was\nmade known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words, whereby,\nwhen ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of\nChrist; which in other {130} generations was not made known unto the\nsons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and\nprophets in the Spirit; _to wit_, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs,\nand fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in\nChrist Jesus through the gospel, whereof I was made a minister,\naccording to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according\nto the working of his power.  Unto me, who am less than the least of\nall saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the\nunsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the\ndispensation of the mystery which from all ages hath been hid in God\nwho created all things; to the intent that now unto the principalities\nand the powers in the heavenly _places_ might be made known through the\nchurch the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose\nwhich he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness\nand access in confidence through our faith in him.  Wherefore I ask\nthat ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which are your glory.\n\n\nThere are a few points in this passage which still require explanation.\n\n[Sidenote: _Paul the apostle of catholicity_]\n\n1.  What is St. Paul referring to when he says 'As I wrote afore in few\nwords whereby, when ye read[12], ye can perceive my understanding in\nthe mystery of Christ' or (if I may venture to retranslate it) 'as I\nwrote before in brief, by {131} comparison with which, as ye read, ye\ncan perceive my understanding in the secret of the Christ'?  It is\ngenerally supposed that he is referring to the verses in the first\nchapter of this epistle (i. 9, 10, &c.), in which he speaks of the\n'mystery' or 'secret' of the divine will now disclosed.  But his point\nappears to be rather that he had elsewhere written in brief about his\nown special commission to preach the Gentile gospel; and the more\nprobable reference seems to be to the Epistle to the Colossians which\nwas written almost simultaneously with this epistle, probably just\npreviously, and was intended to be read at some at least, if not all,\nof the same churches as this circular epistle, that is to say at\nLaodicea and Colossae at least, and probabfxly more widely.  In that\nepistle (i. 25 ff.) he had really dwelt on his special commission in\nalmost the same terms as here, and comparison with what he said there\nwould indeed assist those he was now addressing to understand his\nknowledge in the 'revealed secret of the Christ.'\n\n2.  How can St. Paul, who insists continually that he is one of the\napostles, call them, without self-complacency, God's holy apostles?\nThe answer to this is that 'holiness' means 'consecration.'  Any one is\n'holy' or a 'saint' (the {132} same word) who is consecrated to God in\nany special way.  Such consecration lays upon him an obligation to\nmoral goodness, which is what we mean by holiness, but it precedes the\nfulfilment of the obligation.  All Christians are holy (or 'saints')\nbecause they are Christians, all apostles because they are apostles.\nAs for St. Paul's personal estimate of himself as an individual, we\nhave it just below.  In view of his past sins, when he was 'kicking\nagainst the pricks,' and, albeit in ignorance, persecuting the Church,\nhe calls himself 'less than the least of all the holy.'\n\n3.  St. Paul conceives his function to be to 'make men see,' or 'bring\ninto the light' a long hidden secret of God now in part disclosed to\nthe apostles, and to be by them disclosed to the world--in part, for\nits contents are still 'unsearchable' in their depth and in the\n'manifoldness' of divine wisdom which they imply.  But what is\ndisclosed is no afterthought of God.  It is an eternal purpose; and it\nis all of a piece with the original idea of creation: it is a 'secret\n... hidden in God who created all things.'  Redemption in fact\ninterprets to angels and men what God's purpose in creation originally\nwas.  To minister to this disclosure is enough for any {133} man.  It\nmakes all St. Paul's tribulations only such as it is worth while to\nbear; and the Gentiles, in their turn, should find their glory in his\ntribulations as an evidence of how much he thought it worth while to\nsuffer in what is their cause no less truly than his.\n\n[Sidenote: St. Paul's second prayer]\n\nHere, as in the first chapter, the consideration of the glory, and\nconsequently the difficulty, of the gospel which St. Paul has to\ndeliver leads him off--just at the point where he seems to be resuming\nthe uncompleted sentence with which he began--into a prayer that the\nAsiatic Christians may have strength given them to apprehend the wealth\nof their spiritual position and opportunity.  He invokes God as the\nuniversal 'father (_pater_) from whom every family (_patria_)--every\ncompany of men knit together by common relation to one father--is\nnamed,' because this has direct reference to his purpose.  All men\nrecognize family, or blood relations and obligations.  St. Paul reminds\nthem that every conceivable society on earth or in heaven which is\nbound by the ties of a common fatherhood, derives its 'name' and\ntherefore its significance from a larger relationship, an all-embracing\nrelationship of which these lower ones are but shadows--the\nrelationship to the one Father: {134} and he calls upon the one Father\nto strengthen men to transcend all narrownesses of family or blood, and\nrise to realize their position in the great family, the great\nbrotherhood under the one Father.  To do this a strengthening of the\ninner man, or inner life, by the divine Spirit is indeed needed.\nChrist must be not only possessed by Christians, but realized.  He must\ndwell in their hearts by the realizing power of an active personal\nfaith.  Where this is so--where faith is vigorous--there life must be\nrooted and founded on love.  Christian faith involves love.  For it is\nfaith in a Father and His Son and His Spirit; and love, and nothing but\nlove, is the gift of the Father in the Son by the Spirit.  This love\nthen will strengthen them, in the fellowship of the saints or\nconsecrated ones altogether, to apprehend God's work and purpose in all\nits dimensions--breadth and length and depth and height--and to know\nChrist's love (which yet passes knowledge and remains unknowable), and\nto find their whole being, not as separate individuals, but as one body\npraying and working and thinking together, expanded to take in the\nfulness of what God is, the full complement of the divine life.  To be\nthus enlightened and enlarged is what St. Paul {135} understands by\nbeing a 'good catholic': that is what he prays all these Asiatic\nChristians may become.\n\nAnd his prayer passes into a doxology--an ascription of glory to God\nbecause He is able to realize even what passes our power to conceive or\nto ask for; and that without doing more for us than He has already\npledged Himself to do and actually begun to accomplish in us.  And this\nglory he would have eternally ascribed to God in the Church which lives\nby His life; and also (where alone God can never fail of His full\nrights) in Him in whom alone God's life is perfectly realized, and\nworship perfectly rendered Him under conditions of manhood, in Jesus\nthe Christ.\n\n\nFor this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family\nin heaven and on earth is named, that he would grant you, according to\nthe riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through\nhis Spirit in the inward man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts\nthrough faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,\nmay be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and\nlength and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which\npasseth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.\nNow unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we\nask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him _be_\nthe glory in the {136} church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations\nfor ever and ever.  Amen.\n\n\nSt. Augustine, with his eye on the imperfections of the Church,\nspeaks[13] of 'the glory of love ... alive but yet frost-bound.  The\nroot is alive, but the branches are almost dry.  There is a heart alive\nwithin, and within are leaves and fruits; but they are waiting for a\nsummer.'  That is surely what we feel.  The world cries out for\nbrotherhood.  We are perpetually explaining that brotherhood can only\nbecome actual, in the long run, where men know themselves to be, and in\nfact are, sons of God.  We are continually pointing out that external\nlegislative social reforms can only effect good where there exists, to\nrespond to them and to use them, some strength and purity of inward\ncharacter: that outward reforms without moral redemption would effect\nevil rather than good.  All this is true and it is necessary to explain\nit.  But the convincing demonstration begins at that point where\nChristianity makes man feel, and see in fact, that it contains in\nitself the remedy for social evils, because it has the spirit of love:\nwhere the Church is so actually presented as that men should feel and\nknow that this is a true human {137} brotherhood.  It is the social,\nhuman, brotherly power of the Church which is what is at the present\nmoment best calculated to win the consciences and convince the\nintellects of men.  But this actual living spirit of self-sacrificing\nlove--this spirit of real brotherhood--how 'frost-bound' it is!  How\nlarge the area of the Church, how many its institutions, where it is\nnot (to say the least) the most obvious thing represented!  In fact,\nsocial reform, and that the most thorough and the most permanent,\nrequires nothing more than that professing Christians should be better\nChristians, Christians who really believe what St. Paul and St. John\nsay about the love of the brethren.  Come then, O breath of the divine\nSpirit, and breathe upon these bones of the Christian Church, that they\nmay live!\n\nAnd outside the area of nominal Christianity how 'frost-bound' our\nevangelizing love.  Surely the Church of England, as part of the\nexpansive British nation, has an apostleship to the nations comparable\nto St. Paul's.  Yet missionary zeal, as directed towards the natives of\nIndia, or Japan, or Africa, is a very restricted thing; noticeably\nrestricted it must be confessed among those who most love the name of\nCatholic: and almost non-existent in the great majority of those who\nare {138} yet members of the national Church.  But it cannot be too\ndeeply felt that to St. Paul the reconciliation of men with God is\ninseparable from the reconciliation of man with man.  The atonement\nwith God that is not an atonement among men he would not own.  A peace\nwith God that leaves us content that Hindoos and Japanese and Africans\nshould not be of our religion is a false peace.  A Christian who is not\nreally in heart and will a missionary is not a Christian at all.\nMissionary effort is not a speciality of a few Christians, though, like\nevery other part of Christian life, it has its special organs.  It is\nan essential, never to be forgotten, part of all true Christian living,\nand thinking, and praying.\n\nThe missionary obligation of the Church depends, no doubt, chiefly on\nthe command of Christ, 'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations.'\nBut it is made intelligible when we realize that Christianity is really\na catholic religion, and that only in proportion as its catholicity\nbecomes a reality is its true power and richness exhibited.  Each new\nrace which is introduced into the Church not only itself receives the\nblessings of our religion, but reacts upon it to bring out new and\nunsuspected aspects and {139} beauties of its truth and influence.  It\nhas been so when Greeks, and Latins, and Teutons, and Kelts, and Slavs\nhave each in turn been brought into the growing circle of believers.\nHow impoverished was the exhibition of Christianity which the Jewish\nChristians were capable of giving by themselves!  How much of the\ntreasures of wisdom and power which lie hid in Christ awaited the Greek\nintellect, and the Roman spirit of government, and the Teutonic\nindividuality, and the temper and character of the Kelt and the Slav,\nbefore they could leap into light!  And can we doubt that now again not\nonly would Indians, and Japanese, and Africans, and Chinamen be the\nbetter for Christianity, but that Christianity would be unspeakably\nalso the richer for their adhesion--for the gifts which the subtlety of\nIndia, and the grace of Japan, and the silent patience of China are\ncapable of bringing into the city of God.\n\nCome, then, O breath of the divine Spirit, and breathe upon the dead\nbones of the Christian churches that forget that they are evangelists\nof the nations, that they may live and stand upon their feet, an\nexceeding great army, an army with banners.\n\n\n\n[1] Acts xxii. 17-21.  'While I prayed in the temple, I fell into a\ntrance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly\nout of Jerusalem....  Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto\nthe Gentiles.'\n\n[2] Gal. i. 15.  'It was the good pleasure of God, who separated me,\n_even_ from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to\nreveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles.'\n\n[3] Col. i. 24-29; iv. 3, 4.\n\n[4] Col. iii. 11.\n\n[5] 1 John ii. 7, 8.\n\n[6] Phil. 16.\n\n[7] Eph. iv. 1-3.\n\n[8] Acts xxii. 21; xxvi. 17, 18.\n\n[9] Thus the limitation of the term 'brotherhood' to Christians is\nimplied in 1 Pet. ii. 17, 'Honour all men.  Love the brotherhood;' and\nin 2 Pet. i. 7, 'In your love of the brethren supply love' (i.e. in the\nnarrower and closer circle of believers, learn the wider and all\nembracing attitude towards men as men); and in 1 Cor. v. 11, 'Any man\nthat is named a brother.'  The word brother is throughout the New\nTestament used of _Christians_ only, except where, in the Acts, it is\nused by Jews of Jews.  Our Lord's language about brotherhood applies to\nthe circle of the disciples, except Matt. xxv. 40, 'One of these my\nbrethren,' i.e. the wretched.\n\n[10] Acts xvii. 28.\n\n[11] Acts xvii. 26.\n\n[12] Dr. Hort thinks 'read' is a technical word for reading the\nScriptures, and that this reading of the Old Testament Scriptures is to\nenable them to appreciate St. Paul's 'understanding in the secret of\nthe Christ.'  But I doubt if so technical a use of 'read' can be made\nout.\n\n[13] _In Epist. Joan, ad Parth._ v. 10.\n\n\n\n\n{140}\n\nDIVISION I.  Sec. 6.  CHAPTER IV. 1-16.\n\n_The unity of the church._\n\n[Sidenote: _Connexion of thought_]\n\nThis Epistle to the Ephesians, viewed as a whole and from the point of\nview of a sympathetic intelligence, has a remarkable unity, and a unity\nprogressively developed.  Thus, first of all, the apostle opened the\nimagination of his hearers or readers to consider the place which the\ncatholic church holds in the divine counsels for the universe, in the\nrealization of the human ideal, and in the work of redemption from sin\n(chap. i and ii).  Then he proceeded to justify and explain his own\nactivity in the cause of catholicity, and made them feel at once the\nglory and the profound difficulty of the ideal of unity in diversity\nwhich it involves (chap. iii).  It follows naturally and logically that\nhe should set the Church before them as an actually existing\norganization, and bid them study it exactly and note the grounds of its\nunity and the common end to which its different elements or members\n{141} are meant to minister; and this is what he actually does in the\nfourth chapter (1-16).  Viewed, however, as a matter of grammatical\nstructure, it is probable that this passage forms another\ndigression--the real necessity of the argument acting as an\novermastering motive which pulls contrary to the immediate grammatical\npurpose of the writer.  Thus he had begun, at the beginning of chapter\niii, to pass from the doctrinal exposition which is involved in his\nopening chapters to practical exhortation.  The Asiatic members of the\ncatholic church are to be exhorted to live up to their calling: to turn\ntheir backs deliberately on their old heathen habits, and to conform\nthemselves entirely to the principles of their new state.  To this\nexhortation he actually and finally attains at chapter iv. 17.  The\nintervening passage (a chapter and a half) is occupied, first, with the\ndigression which we have just considered at length, about St. Paul's\nmission to the Gentiles and the difficulty of its realization, and with\nthe great prayer which that topic suggests (chap. iii); secondly, with\nanother digression on the character of the unity of the Church.  This\nis, I say, probably the case grammatically.  For 'I, Paul, the prisoner\nof Jesus Christ for you Gentiles' (iii. 1) is almost {142} unmistakably\nintended to introduce a moral appeal to which his imprisonment for the\nsake of those to whom he writes adds weight and force[1].  It is taken\nup, after a digression, in iv. i, 'I, therefore, the prisoner of the\nLord, beseech you to walk worthily'; but the appeal there begun yields\nanew to the necessity of further exposition, and only reaches its free\nexpression in iv. 17, 'This therefore I say and testify in the Lord';\nafter which point we have moral exhortation and little else.\n\nNow, therefore, we are to occupy ourselves with what is grammatically a\nsecond digression, but logically and really a most necessary step in\nthe exposition of St. Paul's thoughts--the subject of the unity of the\nchurch catholic, its nature and obligations.  Conscious of the profound\ndifficulty of welding naturally antagonistic elements, such as Jews and\nGentiles, slaves and free men, into one catholic fellowship, St. Paul\nappeals to the Asiatic churches with all the force which he can command\nas a prisoner on their account, to 'walk' as their catholic calling\n{143} involves; that is, to exhibit all those moral qualities which are\nnecessary to maintain peace under difficult circumstance--a modest\nestimate of oneself (humility or 'lowliness'), a mildness in mutual\nrelations ('meekness'), an habitual refusal to pass quick judgements on\nwhat one cannot but condemn or dislike ('longsuffering'), a deliberate\nforbearance one of another based on love.  They are to accept one\nanother as brethren, with the rights of brethren.  And the reason why\nthey should exhibit these qualities is not far to seek: they actually\nshare one common supernatural life--the imparted life of the\nSpirit--and they are, therefore, to make it their deliberate object to\npreserve this actual spiritual unity in its appropriate outward\nexpression, that is in harmonious fellowship,--'giving diligence to\nkeep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'\n\n[Sidenote: _The unity of the church_]\n\nBut at this point the idea of the unity of the Church is felt to need\nfuller exposition.  In what sense are Christians one?  They are one as\n_one body_ or organization, made up no doubt of a multitude of\ndiffering individual members, but all bound into one, under Christ for\ntheir head, by the fact that the _one Spirit_, which is Christ's\nsupreme gift, is imparted to the whole {144} organization and every\nmember of it: and this common corporate life, where the elements are so\ndifferent, is made possible by the _one hope_ reaching forward into an\neternal world, which was set before them all when they received their\ncall into the body of Christ.  This should be enough to annihilate\nlower and shorter-lived differences.  'There is one body[2] and one\nspirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.'  It follows\nfrom this that there is another threefold unity.  For the existence of\nthe common head involves a common _allegiance to Him as Lord_, an\nallegiance which is justified by what He is _believed to be_ by all\nChristians; an allegiance, further, which is more than an outward\nfealty, being cemented by an actual incorporation into His life which\ntakes place through the speaking symbol of the _laver of\nregeneration_[3].  'One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'  But once more.\nThis common union with and under Christ in the Spirit, is not anything\nless than union with _the one and only God and Father_, who is _over\nall_ as the one head (even 'the head of Christ is God'), _through all_\nas the pervading presence, _in all_ as the active {145} life, 'one God\nand Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all things.'\nThus their unity is the deepest and most ultimate conceivable: it has a\nwidth and range from which no one can be excluded: while it has a\ncloseness and cogency like the unity of blood.\n\nTo realize what this unity is and may be, involves on our part a\ncontinual looking out of ourselves, out of all individual, social and\nnational differences, up to the common source of all the gifts of all\nChristians.  Whatever each one possesses is simply the gift of the\ndivine bounty or grace, given to him by a definite act of bestowal,\nvarying merely in kind and degree according to the sovereign will of\nChrist the Lord, the only giver; and it is therefore to be used in His\nservice and for His ends.  The Psalmist had sung of the divine king of\nIsrael mounting as an earthly conqueror unto his sanctuary throne in\nZion after making captives and receiving gifts from among his enemies\nwithout exception.\n\n  'Thou hast gone up into the heights,\n  Thou hast led captives captive;\n  Thou hast received gifts among men, yea from the rebellious also[4].'\n\n\nIt stands to reason that to St. Paul's mind this {146} conception is\nrealized nowhere but in Christ.  Its application to Christ is in fact\nassumed--'therefore,' i.e. with a view to Christ, 'he' or rather 'it,'\nthe Scripture 'saith'--and the passage is given free interpretation,\nand, more than this, free modification, on the basis of this\nassumption.  For (1) the ascension of the conquering king is spoken of\nas the result of a previous descent to the 'lower regions of this earth\nof ours[5].'  No man, as St. John says, hath ascended up to heaven but\nHe that came down from heaven.  The person who 'beggared himself' to\ncome down to our earth and who subsequently mounted into the divine\nglory is one and the same person, Christ the incarnate Son; and He thus\ndescended and re-ascended in order that He might, through the atonement\nwrought by Him in the flesh and through the exaltation which rewarded\nit, restore to the universe that unity of which sin and rebellion had\nrobbed it, and 'fill all things' once again with the divine bounty and\npresence[6].\n\n{147}\n\n(2) The sense of the psalm is--possibly not without Jewish\nprecedent[7]--altered in expression so that, instead of the conqueror\nreceiving gifts from men, his conquered enemies, we have him\nrepresented as 'giving gifts to men.'  This modification, whether\noriginal in St. Paul or accepted by him, is no doubt due to the fact\nthat his mind is full of the idea of Christ as conquering only to\nbless, receiving homage only to be enabled to bestow on them who offer\nit the fulness of the divine bounty.  And the 'captives' of Christ, to\nSt. Paul's mind, are no doubt not men, but the hosts of Satan reduced\nto impotence.  The exalted Christ, then, is the source of all gifts in\nHis Church, and He bestows on men various endowments in such a way as\nto maintain among them a necessary relation.  'No member of the body of\nChrist is endued with such perfection as to be able, without the\nassistance of others, to supply his own necessities.  A certain\nproportion is allotted to each, and it is only by communicating with\nothers that all enjoy what is sufficient for maintaining their\nrespective places in the body[8].'  This is the principle of mutual\ndependence, the fundamental principle of corporate life.  Thus 'He gave\n{148} some as apostles, some prophets,' others in other varying\ncapacities to fulfil varying functions; the principle of the bestowal\nbeing the same throughout.  Each 'gifted' individual becomes himself a\ngift to the Church.  He is 'gifted' not for his own sake but for the\nChurch's sake--'with a view to the perfecting of the saints,' or 'the\ncomplete equipment of the consecrated body,' for the manifold 'work of\nministry' entrusted to it; or to look at the matter from a rather\ndifferent point of view, 'for the purpose of completing the structure\nof the body of Christ'--that living company of men in whom Christ\nexpresses Himself and through whom He acts upon the world.  And that\nstructure is not complete till all together attain what is impossible\nto any isolated Christian individual, the unity not only of a common\nfaith, but also of a common knowledge of what is revealed in the Son of\nGod; or, in other words, to the full-grown manhood; which, once again,\nmeans that complete developement in which the fulness of the\nChrist--all the complete array of His attributes and qualities--finds\nharmonious exhibition over again in His people, His body.\n\nBut the possibility of this completeness on the part of the Church as a\nwhole, depends on the {149} stability of the individual members in the\ncommon faith.  Thus it is Christ's purpose that His members should\ncease to be as children, stirred up like the waves of the sea, or\ncarried about like feathers, by every wind of false teaching.  There\nis, it must be remembered, a kingdom of deception, an organized attempt\nto seduce souls, of which wicked men make themselves the instruments.\nIn view of this hostile kingdom of error, the Christians must abide in\nthe truth revealed to them in love, and so grow up into the completed\nlife of Christ.  For He is the head, and in Him they are the body.  And\nthe body is a unit of many parts fitted and held together in one life\nby a supply from the head, which circulates through every joint, and\nfor the full and unimpeded communication of which each several limb\nmust do its proper work, so that the whole body may grow into completed\nlife in that mutual coherence which is Christian love.\n\n\nThis prolonged paraphrase may serve to bring out the innumerable points\nof interest in that rich passage in which St. Paul as it were gives the\nreins to his imagination and his feelings in order to describe the\nglory of the unity of the Church.\n\n\n{150} I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk\nworthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with all lowliness\nand meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;\ngiving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.\n_There_ is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one\nhope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and\nFather of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.  But unto\neach one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift\nof Christ.  Wherefore he saith,\n\n  When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive,\n  And gave gifts unto men.\n\n(Now this, He ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the\nlower parts of the earth?  He that descended is the same also that\nascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)\nAnd he gave some _to be_ apostles; and some, prophets; and some\nevangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the\nsaints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body\nof Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the\nknowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of\nthe stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may be no longer\nchildren, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of\ndoctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of\nerror; but speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him,\nwhich is the head, _even_ Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed\nand knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according\nto the working in _due_ measure of each several part, maketh the\nincrease of the body unto the building up of itself in love.\n\n{151}\n\nIn this great conception of church unity there are several points to\nwhich special attention must be given.\n\n\ni.\n\nThe Church is one, first of all, because a common inward life, the\nSpirit, from a common source, Christ, flows in her veins and makes her\nto be one body.  What is this 'unity of Spirit?' says Chrysostom.  'As\nin a body it is spirit which holds all together, and makes that to be a\nunity which consists of different limbs, so it is in the Church.  For\nthe Spirit was given for this purpose that He might unify those who\ndiffer in race and variety of habits.'  This inward life is no doubt,\nas we shall see, imparted, maintained and perfected through outward\nmeans or institutions--baptism, the eucharist, human offices and\nministries; but none the less it is the inward life which makes the\nChurch one.  So that her unity is like the unity of a family or a race,\na unity of blood and life which exists in spite of all outward\ndifferences: and not like such a unity as is produced by outward\ngovernment, as, for example, Armenians, Syrians, Kurds, and Turks make\nup the unity of the Turkish empire, or Englishmen and Frenchmen the\nDominion of {152} Canada.  The unity of the Christian Church is thus a\nunity which ought to express itself in 'the bond of peace,' but which\ndoes not consist in that, any more than the unity of a family consists\nin the affection and sympathy which yet brothers ought to have one to\nanother.  This Pauline idea of church unity--which is the idea also of\nthe New Testament as a whole--constantly finds expression in early\nChristian writings, but one particular expression of it may be cited.\nHilary of Poitiers, in argument with the Arians, is confronted with the\nposition that the phrase 'I and my Father are one' means only one in\nwill, not one in nature, like the phrase used of the Church, 'one heart\nand soul.'  He refutes the argument by urging that, in the latter case\nalso, what is referred to is not a unity of wills but of nature:\nbelievers are 'one thing through a new birth into the same (new)\nnature.'  'Ye are all one,' says St. Paul, 'in Christ Jesus.'  'The\napostle teaches that this unity of the faithful comes from the nature\nof the sacraments....  What then can concord of minds have to do with a\ncase where men are already made one by being clothed with one Christ\nthrough the nature of one baptism?[9]'  This passage gives {153} a\nstriking view of what ultimately constitutes church unity.\n\nIt is necessary to call attention to this position because the great\nRoman church, which occupies so large a space in the whole area of the\nchurch, and impresses its ideas so powerfully upon men's imagination,\nhas perverted this idea of church unity by a one-sided emphasis on\nunity of government.  I find a typical modern Roman statement in Dr.\nHunter's _Outlines of Dogmatic Theology_[10]: 'The Church has a\nprinciple of oneness which joins the members together, and\ndistinguishes the society from a mere aggregate of unconnected units.\nThe members are associated in order that, believing the revelation that\nGod has given, and using the means of grace which He has provided,\nunder the direction of the governors who have their authority from Him,\nthey may attain the end of their being, the salvation of their souls.\nIn other words, the unity which the Church must have includes the unity\nof faith, unity of worship, and unity of government.'  Here we have\nchurch unity described as an outward association of individuals to\nattain a certain end by submitting to a common authority in matters of\nbelief and worship.  The {154} unity of spiritual life which St. Paul\nand St. Hilary put distinctly first, becomes secondary or subordinate.\nIt is not even specified among the three chief elements of unity.  But\nit makes the greatest possible difference whether you say 'the Church\nis one because all baptized persons share a common life in Christ, and\nought therefore to behave as \"one body,\"' or 'the Church is one by\nsubmitting to a common authority in belief, worship, and government.'\nThe second is the Roman, the first is the apostolic statement.\n\n\nii.\n\nOnce more, St. Paul's idea of the unity of the Church forbids us to\nconceive of it as complete in this world.  Each particular church with\nits own organization has a certain relative completeness, but it gains\nall its meaning and life through fellowship in the body of Christ--the\nwhole society of men who, having Christ for their head, live in the\nunity of a life derived from Him.  The head of the body is out of\nsight.  So also are the members of the body who 'are fallen asleep' but\nare still 'in Jesus[11].'  It is, so to speak--and increasingly as\nhistory goes {155} on--only the lower limbs of the body who are on the\nearth at any particular moment.  And they find their centre of unity at\nno lower point than Christ, the unseen head.  This idea is vigorously\nexpressed by St. Augustine[12]: 'Since the whole Church is made up of\nthe head and the body, the head is our Saviour Himself, who suffered\nunder Pontius Pilate, who now, after He has risen from the dead, sits\nat the right hand of God; but the body is the Church--not this church\nor that, but the Church scattered over all the world; nor is it that\nonly which exists among men now living; but they also belong to it who\nwere before us and are to be after us to the end of the world.  For the\nwhole Church, made up of all the faithful, because all the faithful are\nmembers of Christ, has its head situate in the heavens which governs\nthis body: though it is separated from their sight, yet it is bound to\nthem by love.\"\n\nNow it is obvious that this Pauline and Augustinian idea of church\nunity excludes, instead of suggesting, the Roman method of arguing for\nthe papacy from the necessity that a body must have a head.  An\nassociation of men in this world, such as the Church on earth {156}\nis--a 'body of men' in this sense--may be governed in any of the\nvarious ways in which human societies are governed, not by any means\nnecessarily by a monarch[13].  In this sense a body need not have a\nsingle head; or it can be ruled by a president in a council of equals.\nBut in St. Paul's sense, the Church as a body must have a head, and\nthat head can be none other than Christ, because, according to his\nspiritual physiology, from its head the Church receives its continually\ninflowing life; and because the body is not completely, but only\npartially, in this world, and the head must be over all the members,\nand not only over some.\n\n\niii.\n\nBut if the unity of the Church, as St. Paul expounds it, is before all\nelse a unity of life, it is as well a unity in the truth.  It is a\nunity based on belief in a divine revelation, given in the person of\nChrist--based on the common confession that Jesus crucified and risen\nis Christ and Lord[14].  To say that 'Jesus is the Lord' {157} involves\nfurther--what is implied in this passage of the Epistle to the\nEphesians--the confession of the threefold name--the 'one God and\nFather,' the 'one Lord' Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the 'one Spirit'\nwhich is His gift; and there can be no real question that St. Paul's\nlanguage constantly involves that the Son and Spirit are with the\nFather really personal, and really divine, included, so to speak, in\nthe one only eternal Godhead.  A creed then is at the basis of the\nChristian life--a creed which finds its best expression and safeguard\nin the formulated doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  There\nis no reason to think that St. Paul, if the situation of the later\nChurch could have been made plain to him, would have shrunk from these\ndogmatic safeguards of the Church's central faith.\n\nBut if we grant--what cannot really with any show of reason be\ndenied--that the Church is a visible organization based on a certain\nrevealed truth, which must be accepted by its members, and which admits\nof being formulated in order to be preserved; still this truth may be\nadvanced and defended mainly by one of two methods--that of external\nregulative authority, or that of appeal to principles, discussion,\ncontroversy, {158} exhortation.  And it can hardly be denied that St.\nPaul prefers the latter.  Sharp appeals to authority are indeed to be\nfound in St. Paul[15], but they are very rare.  For example, in none of\nhis epistles against the Judaizers is the authority of the apostolic\ndecision, as to what might and what might not be required of the\nGentile Christians 'in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia[16],' brought into\nrequisition; though that decision 'settled the question.'  He prefers\nto prove that 'circumcision is nothing.'  This may be in part accounted\nfor by St. Paul's refusal to admit that his own apostolic authority\nneeded the support of the twelve, and by the limited area to which the\ndecision was addressed; but there is another reason as well.  For he\nplainly, as all his epistles show, prefers to appeal not to authority\nat all but to the spiritual reason; to expound principles, to argue, to\nawaken the heart, conscience, and mind of Christians.  It must be\nadmitted that there is very little in St. Paul's epistles about\ndifferences of doctrinal views among Christians as distinct from\ndifferences in practices.  Yet there is enough--as in the vigorous\npassage about the 'regarding of one {159} day above another[17]'--to\njustify the belief that he would not have viewed with any disapproval\nthe existence in the Church of tolerated differences of opinion where\nthey did not touch the basis of the Church's life.  Such differences of\nview are hardly separable from what St. Paul glories in--a unity which\nis consistent with great variety of gifts and character, and great\nfreedom.  It is unity in variety which he has as his ideal, such a\nunity as is always characteristic of a unity of life, like that of\nnature or of a free people; or a unity, again, like that of a great\nGothic Church, or of the Bible.\n\nIt is quite certain that St. Paul would have deprecated that 'short and\neasy' method of promoting unity which has constant recourse to the\nexternal pressure of dogma and authority.\n\n\niv.\n\nIt follows naturally from what has been just said, that St. Paul should\nlook not so much to ecclesiastical enactments as to a right Christian\ntemper for preserving outward unity.  'Making it your moral effort,' so\nwe may paraphrase his exhortation to the Asiatic Christians, 'by means\n{160} of the virtues which I have just specified of humility, meekness,\nlong-suffering, and forbearance, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in\nthe bond of Christian peace.'  The New Testament view of heresy (a\nself-willed separatism), or schism, is that it is a violation of\ncharity and peace in the interests of pride and impatience and\nself-will.  It is men like 'Diotrephes who loveth to have the\npre-eminence,' who violate it.  In fact it is written in history that\nthe ecclesiastical schisms of the past have been due mainly either to\nthe impatience and wilfulness of would-be reformers, from Tertullian\ndownwards, or to the arrogance and love of domination in rival\nindividuals or rival sees.\n\n'Nothing,' says Chrysostom on this passage, 'will have power to divide\nthe Church so much as the love of authority, and nothing provokes God\nso much as that the Church should be divided.  We may have done ten\nthousand good actions, but if we rend the fulness of the Church, we\nshall suffer punishment with those who rent His body.'\n\nFrom this point of view we may find an interesting parallel to this\nexhortation of St. Paul in a passage of Plato's _Laws_, which is, I\nbelieve, one of the few passages in pre-Christian writings where the\nvirtue of humility is recognized.  {161} 'God, as the old tradition\ndeclares, holding in His hand the beginning, middle, and end of all\nthat is, moves according to His nature in a straight line towards the\naccomplishment of His end.  Justice always follows Him, and is the\npunisher of those who fall short of the divine law.  To that law he who\nwould be happy holds fast, and follows it in all humility and order;\nbut he who is lifted up with pride, or money, or honour, or beauty, who\nhas a soul hot with folly and guilt and insolence, and thinks that he\nhas no need of a guide and ruler, but is able himself to be the guide\nof others, he, I say, is left deserted of God; and being thus deserted,\nhe takes to him others who are like himself, and dances about in wild\nconfusion; and many think that he is a great man, but in a short time\nhe pays a penalty which justice cannot but approve, and is utterly\ndestroyed, and his family and city with him.'\n\nFrom the point of view of the moral duty of preserving ecclesiastical\nunity, it is quite clear that the guilt of Christians has been\nexceedingly great, and also that it has been very widely diffused.  The\namount of ambition, insolence, and impatience in the Church has, in\nfact, been so vast that it remains no longer a matter {162} for\nastonishment that it should have made the havoc that it has made in the\ndivine household, and should have thwarted, as it has thwarted, the\ndivine intention.  But the recognition of this fact lays on us the duty\nof meditating continually on the divine intention, and by all that lies\nin our power, by prayer and by every other means, to restore the\nrecognition of the divine principle of unity whether in the narrower or\nthe wider circle of church life.\n\nIt is not too much to say that the now popular principle of the free\nvoluntary association of Christians in societies organized to suit\nvarying phases of taste, is destructive of the moral discipline\nintended for us.  It was the obligation to belong to one body which was\nintended as the restraint on the prejudices and eccentricities of race,\nclasses and individuals.  If Greeks, Italians, and Englishmen are to be\ncontent to belong to different churches; if among ourselves we are to\nhave one church for the well-to-do, and another for 'labour'; if any\nindividual who is offended in one church is to be free to go off to\nanother where he or she likes the minister better--where does the need\ncome in for the forbearance and long-suffering and humility on which\nSt. Paul {163} insists as the necessary virtues of the one body?  We,\nChristians but not in one brotherhood, may not be able to agree at\npresent among ourselves as to the proper basis of ecclesiastical unity,\nbut we ought to be able to agree that, somehow or other, Christians are\nintended by Christ and by the apostle to be one body, and that the\nwilful violation of outward unity is truly a refusal of the yoke of\nChrist.\n\nAnd a great step would have been taken towards rendering the recovery\nof ecclesiastical unity more easy if those who recognize the obligation\nof the principle could be brought to perceive that true Catholicism\nreally requires a large measure of toleration and a deliberate\nreasonableness.  At present it is not too much to say that the idea of\nthe obligation of ecclesiastical unity is widely associated with an\nemphasis on ecclesiastical and dogmatic authority such as is utterly\nalien to the mind of the apostle of Catholicism.\n\n\nv.\n\nIn what has been said above we have been attending chiefly to the\nrestraints which St. Paul's idea of church unity appears to set upon\nwhat are commonly known as 'ecclesiastical tendencies.' {164} Now it is\ntime to emphasize the other side of the representation.  For without a\nstrongly engrained prejudice, there is not, it seems to the present\nwriter, any possibility of doubting that St. Paul meant by 'the Church'\nin general, a society visible and organized, represented by a number of\nvisible and organized local societies or churches[18].  The Church is\nin fact ideal in its spiritual character, but not one bit the less an\nassociation of human beings, a society with quite definite limits,\nties, and obligations.  For, to begin with, the 'one baptism' which\nconveyed the spiritual gift of incorporation into Christ was also the\ninitiation into an actual brotherhood, with its rules of conduct,\nworship, and belief: 'we were all baptized into one body[19].'  The\n'one Spirit' was normally bestowed by the 'laying on of' apostolic\n'hands'--that is, the hands of the chief governors of the Christian\ncorporation.  This rite followed upon and completed baptism, and its\nadministration had {165} been one of St. Paul's first ministerial acts\nafter he began his preaching at Ephesus[20].  Again, 'the breaking of\nthe bread' or eucharist, according to St. Paul's teaching, both\nnourished the life of Christ in the Church, as being the communion of\nHis body and blood, and also, in the 'one loaf,' symbolized its outward\ncorporate unity[21].\n\nThus the bestowal of gifts of grace through outward rites, which\nbelonged to the corporate life of a society, insured that a Christian\nshould be no isolated and independent individual.  More than this, the\nnecessary dependence of each individual Christian upon the one\norganized society is made further evident by the existence of\nspiritually endowed officers of the society who were as 'the more\nhonourable limbs of the body'--'some apostles, some prophets, some\nevangelists, some pastors and teachers'--without whom the body would\nhave lacked its divinely-given equipment for ministry and edification.\nThese were not merely more or less gifted or (as we say) talented\nindividuals who undertook particular sorts of work on their own\ninitiative, or by the invitation of any group of Christian individuals.\nWe find that the apostles at least were a definite {166} body of men\nwho had received special commission from Christ Himself to govern His\nChurch[22].  The Christian 'prophets' were men of special supernatural\nendowment, to know and declare God's will, and foretell His purposes.\nThey ranked after the apostles in virtue of their prophetic gift[23].\nBut even they were to be restrained by the exigencies of church order.\n'The spirits of the prophets are subject unto the prophets; for God is\nnot a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the\nsaints.'  Next to the prophets, St. Paul specifies the 'evangelists.'\nThey were no doubt, as their name implies, officers engaged with the\napostles in the general work of spreading the gospel, that is of\nfounding and organizing churches.  Timothy, who is exhorted to 'do the\nwork of an evangelist[24],' would probably have ranked amongst them;\nand if so, Titus and other similar companions and delegates of\napostles.  At any rate, by whatever name they were called, such men\nbelonged to {167} the specially 'gifted' class, if we may judge by the\ncase of Timothy.  But he, though marked out by prophecy, received his\n'gift,' as a church officer, with the laying on of the hands of a whole\npresbytery, while the hands of the apostle himself were the divine\ninstruments for imparting the gift to him[25].  The 'pastors and\nteachers'--one class of men and not two--are, we may say certainly,\nidentical with the presbyters or 'bishops' as they were called by St.\nPaul at Ephesus; and these again were men of spiritual endowment, but\nalso local church officers who had received a definite apostolic\nappointment[26], and there is no reason to doubt by laying on of hands.\nThus the Church, as St. Paul conceives it, is a body differentiated by\nvarieties of spiritual endowments imparted to definite officers, for\nthe fulfilment of functions necessary to the life and development of\nthe whole body.  Thus the outward unity of the {168} society at any\nparticular moment, and the necessary connexion of each individual\nChristian with it, is secured both by the existence of social\nsacraments or means of grace, and by the existence of a ministry\nspiritually endowed and commissioned, to whom individual Christians\nowed allegiance, and who ranked as the more honourable limbs of that\nbody to which they must belong if they would belong to Christ.\n\n\nvi.\n\nSt. Paul is not here thinking of the unity of the Church otherwise than\nat a particular moment.  But if one turns one's attention to its\ncontinuous unity down the ages, again it must be recognized that one\nmain link of unity has been in fact the apostolic succession of the\nministry; that is the permanence in the Church of a spiritually-endowed\n'stewardship of divine mysteries' received continually by the original\nmethod of the laying on of hands in succession from apostolic men.  The\nnecessity for each individual Christian to remain in relation to these\ncommissioned stewards if he wishes to continue to be of the divine\nhousehold, has kept men together in one body.  And any one who looks at\nSt. Paul's method of imparting spiritual authority {169} and office to\nTimothy and Titus, and directing them in their turn to hand it on by\nordaining others, can scarcely doubt that he contemplated the\ninstitution in the Church of a permanent ministry deriving its\nauthority from above.\n\nHow, in fact, did the later church ministry connect itself with that\nwhich we find existing in the apostolic age?  The apostolic ministry\ndivides itself broadly into the general and the local.  There are\n'ministers' or 'stewards' who are officers of the church catholic and\nhave a general commission.  Such general commission belonged, of\ncourse, to the apostles, though mutual delimitations were arranged\namong themselves and though St. James, who ranked with the apostles,\nwas settled at Jerusalem.  It belonged also, more or less, to\n'evangelists' and other 'apostolic men,' who, however, might be\ntemporarily located in particular churches and districts, like Timothy\nin Ephesus, and Titus in Crete.  It belonged also to the prophets, who\nwould have been recognized as men inspired of God in all the churches,\nand who in the subapostolic age are found in some districts exercising\nfunctions like those of the apostles in the first age.  The local\nofficers, on the other hand, were the presbyters, who are called also\nbishops, and the {170} deacons.  With this earliest state of things in\nour mind, we shall perceive that where an apostle or apostolic man was\npermanently resident in one particular church, a threefold ministry,\nlike that of later church history already existed.  So it was at\nJerusalem where the presbyters and deacons were presided over by St.\nJames.  So it was in Crete under Titus, and in Ephesus under Timothy.\nSo it was a few decades later in all the churches of Asia as organized\nby St. John.  In other parts of the world the exact method by which the\nministry developed is a matter of much dispute.  But it seems to the\npresent writer most probable that everywhere the threefold ministry\ncame into existence by (1) a change of arrangement, and (2) a change of\nname.  (1) The change of arrangement was the establishment in each\nlocal church of a prophet, or one, like Timothy or Titus, who had been\nordained to quasi-apostolic office by an apostle or man of apostolic\nrank; such a change taking place first at the greatest centres, and\nthen in lesser cities.  (2) The change of name was the appropriation to\nthis now localized ruler of the title of bishop or 'overseer' which had\nhitherto appertained more or less to the presbyters generally.\n\n{171}\n\nBut in any case it is certain that the developement of the ministry\noccurred on the principle of the apostolic succession.  Those who were\nto be ministers were the elect of the church in which they were to\nminister: but they were authoritatively ordained to their office from\nabove, and by succession from the apostolic men.  And such a principle\nof ministerial authority appears to be not only historical, but also\nmost rational.  For a continuous corporate unity was to be maintained\nin a society which, as being catholic, must lack all such natural links\nof connexion as are afforded by a common language or common race.  And\nhow could such continuous corporate unity have been so well secured as\nby a succession of persons whose function should be to maintain a\ntradition, and whose ministerial authority should make them necessary\ncentres of the unity?\n\n\n\n[1] And not as Dr. Robertson (Smith's _Dict. of Bible_, ed. ii. vol. i.\npt. ii. p. 951) suggests, to introduce a prayer to God, which is\nresumed in iii. 14.  The 'For this cause' which is repeated in iii. 14\nis not nearly so significant as 'the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you\nGentiles,' which is taken up again in iv. 1.\n\n[2] I have interpreted this word in the light of what is said in verse\n16.\n\n[3] Tit. iii. 5.\n\n[4] Ps. lxviii. 18 (Delitzsch).\n\n[5] I do not think St. Paul need refer to the descent into Hades.  'The\nlower parts of the earth,' Is. xliv. 23, may also refer not to Hades\n(see Delitzsch _in loco_) but to 'the earth beneath.'\n\n[6] The 'filling all things' is, in the epistles to the Ephesians and\nColossians, the characteristic action of the exalted Christ and the\nresult of the reconciliation and atonement won.  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28,\n'That God may be all in all.'\n\n[7] See Delitzsch's and Perowne's notes.\n\n[8] Calvin, _in loc._\n\n[9] Hil. _de Trin._ viii. 7-9.  The last sentence is condensed.\n\n[10] Vol. i. p. 317 (Longmans, 1895).\n\n[11] 1 Thess. iv. 14.\n\n[12] _In Ps._ lvi. i.\n\n[13] It is one very noticeable feature of the recent Encyclical of Leo\nXIII on the Unity of the Church ('satis cognitum') that it assumes that\n'only a despotic monarch can secure to any society unity and strength.'\n\n[14] Romans x. 9.\n\n[15] For example, see Gal. i. 6-9.\n\n[16] Acts xv. 23-29.\n\n[17] Romans xiv. 56; cf. Phil. iii. 15-16.\n\n[18] Cf. Hort, _Ecclesia_, p. 169, who brings out that _all_ members of\nthe local churches, better and worse, are regarded as members of the\nuniversal Church.  'There is no evidence that St. Paul regarded\nmembership of the universal Church as invisible and exclusively\nspiritual, and shared by only a limited number of the members of the\nexternal Ecclesiae.'  See also app. note E, p. 267.\n\n[19] 1 Cor. xii. 13.\n\n[20] Acts xix. 1-7.\n\n[21] 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.\n\n[22] See app. note E, p. 269.\n\n[23] In ii. 20 and iii. 5, 'Apostles and prophets' are spoken of\ntogether almost as one class included under one definite article.  And\nof course the apostle Paul remained also, what he is first called, a\nprophet (Acts xiii. i).  Apostles were also prophets; but not all\nprophets were apostles.  They can be, therefore, grouped apart as they\nare here (iv. 11).\n\n[24] 2 Tim. iv. 5.\n\n[25] 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6.\n\n[26] Acts xiv. 23.  This is interpreted by the phrase (Acts xx. 28)\n'The Holy Ghost made you bishops.'  Cf. Titus i. 5, 'I left thee ... to\nappoint elders in every city....  For the bishop must be blameless.'  I\nassume here the _practical_ identity of bishops and presbyters, as Acts\nxx. 28, Tit. i. 5-7, Acts xiv. 23 (with Phil. i. 1) seem to require.\nBut 'the presbyters' or the 'presbyterate' was the more general name\nfor the governing body of a church, and an apostle can therefore call\nhimself a presbyter or include himself in the presbyterate (1 Peter v.\n1; 1 Tim. iv. 14), whereas he would hardly call himself a 'bishop.'\n\n\n\n\n{172}\n\nDIVISION II.  CHAPTERS IV. 17-VI. 24.\n\n_Doctrine and conduct._\n\n[Sidenote: _Doctrine and conduct_]\n\nHere the apostle, with a final 'therefore,' resuming the 'therefore' of\nIV. i, passes without further delay to the entirely practical portion\nof the epistle.\n\nThese 'therefores' are characteristic of St. Paul.  They indicate his\ndeep sense of the vital and necessary connexion between the Christian\nmode of living and the doctrines of Christian belief.  Christian belief\nis a mould fashioning human conduct by a constant and uniform pressure\ninto a characteristic type, or a set of forces urging it along certain\nlines of movement.  Thus when some point of Christian belief has been\nexpounded there follows a 'therefore' indicating the inevitable moral\nconsequence of such belief where it is intelligently and voluntarily\nheld.  Of course the consequence does not follow of mechanical\nnecessity.  The doctrine acts by an appeal to the will.  'I beseech you\n{173} therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God'--so St. Paul makes\nhis appeal to the Romans, when he had given them his great exposition\nof the doctrines of grace and justification[1].  When he has expounded\nthe doctrine of the resurrection to the Corinthians[2], he\nconcludes--'_Therefore_, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast,' &c.  The\ndoctrine of the Epistle to the Colossians leads to two conclusions:\n'mortify _therefore_' and 'put on _therefore_, as God's elect, holy and\nbeloved, a heart of compassion[3].'  The Epistle to the Hebrews\ncontains similar moral appeals based on dogmatic statements.\n'_Therefore_ let us give the more earnest heed.'  'Having _therefore_,\nbrethren, boldness by the blood of Jesus, let us draw near with a true\nheart.'  '_Therefore_ let us lay aside every weight[4].'  These\n'therefores,' I say, indicate a fundamental characteristic of\nChristianity: it is a manner of living based upon a disclosure of\ndivine truth about God and His will, about man's nature and his sin,\nabout God's redemptive action and its methods and intentions.\n\nAmong ourselves to-day we hear frequently enough disparaging reference\nto theological {174} doctrine whether as a subject for study or for\ndefinite instruction.  Theological dogmas are alluded to as things\nremote from the ordinary concerns of men and associated with the\njarring interests of different religious bodies or of their clergy,\nwith 'denominationalism' or 'sacerdotalism[5].'  This idea has been due\nin great measure no doubt to faults in theologians and priests.  But it\nis none the less absurd, when it is seriously considered.  If those\nwhose lives have given the most shining examples of practical\nChristianity in all ages were cross-questioned, it would be found that\nthe overwhelming majority would, in all simplicity, attribute what was\ngood in their life to their definite beliefs.  Indeed, it is self\nevident that it must have a practically vast effect on a man's conduct\nwhether, for instance, he really believes that his own and other men's\nlives, after some seventy years of probation in this world, pass under\ndivine judgement, only to enter into new and eternal conditions where\nthey will inevitably reap the fruits of their previous careers.  {175}\nIt must make a vital difference whether he believes that the world is\nthe expression of blind force or of the will of a living, loving, God;\nwhether or no he believes that God personally cares for each\nindividual: whether or no he believes that God's interest in the world\nwas such as to move Him to redeem it, by the sacrifice of Himself, from\nthe tyranny of sin: whether he believes in divine forgiveness and God's\nindwelling by His Spirit: whether he believes in a divine brotherhood\nand divine means of grace in a household of God in the world.  In fact,\nif the practical ethics of India and China, or the Turkish Empire and\nMorocco, are considered side by side with those of Christian Europe, it\nis impossible to resist the conviction that men's behaviour depends in\nthe long run on what they believe about God.\n\nThis obvious conclusion is, in part, veiled from our eyes by two facts.\nOne is that logic works slowly in human life.  Take a transverse\nsection of humanity at any particular moment, and it appears a mass of\ninconsistencies.  It might almost suggest that there is no connexion at\nall between belief and practice.  But the same appearance is not\npresented by human life in its long reaches.  There you see how, in the\n{176} slow result, an alteration of belief involves an alteration of\npractice.  Thus to take an example: at present our social conscience\nabout the obligations of marriage, or about personal purity, or about\nsuicide, unsatisfactory as it may appear to be to an earnest Christian,\nis still saturated with Christian sentiment which is the result of a\nprolonged impression left by Christian doctrine.  If the doctrine were\nto pass out of the minds of Englishmen in general, after a generation\nor two there would be a weakening or destruction of the corresponding\nsentiment, and an abolition of what is at present an obstacle to the\nreign of sensual or selfish desires.  But it takes some generations for\nthe effect of any weakening of belief to make itself felt.\n\nThere is another fact which veils from the eyes of people in general\nthe real connexion between morals and doctrine.  It is that it is\nlargely mediate or indirect.  The moral standard of the 'average man'\nis, unconsciously, kept up by the morals of the best men and women.\nFor social opinion is with the majority the force which mainly\ninfluences their practice, and social opinion depends largely on\nleaders.  'It is when the best men cease trying that the world sinks\nback like lead.'  Let anything {177} happen which should silence the\nmoral effort of the best individuals, and disaster would be imminent.\nBut this is exactly what would be the result if the best men and women\nwere to cease to be Christian believers.  It is the highest level of\nour common life that would be depressed.  The result all round would be\nindirect, but it would be widespread and disastrous.\n\nI do not mean, or think, that this weakening of religious belief in the\nbest men and women is occurring.  I only instance its morally certain\nresults to make apparent how the general bearing of religious beliefs\non social practice is, in one way, veiled by its indirectness.\n\nBut to St. Paul all this is self-evident.  He sees quite clearly that\nChristianity is to be a new life, a new social and ethical\nmanifestation in the world, because Christians believe that God has\nmade plain to them in Jesus Christ His character, nature, and\nredemptive purposes, and has given, by His Spirit, a practical power to\ntheir wills to correspond with the truth revealed to their\nintelligences and hearts.\n\nSo he proceeds from his exposition of the great doctrines of the Church\nof the Redemption to its practical moral consequences.\n\n\n\n[1] Rom. xii. 1.\n\n[2] 1 Cor. xv. 58.\n\n[3] Col. iii. 5, 12.\n\n[4] Heb. ii. 1; x. 19; xii. 1.\n\n[5] An interesting expression of this sort of feeling is to be found in\nGeorge Crabbe's poem, _The Library_.  On the whole we must have\nimproved since his day in our perception of the connexion of Christian\ndoctrine with Christian practice.\n\n\n\n\n{178}\n\nDIVISION II.  Sec. 1.  CHAPTER IV. 17-24.\n\n_Christianity a new life._\n\n[Sidenote: _New life in Christ_]\n\nThe characteristic words of St. Paul's gospel--grace, forgiveness,\nmercy, liberty, justification by faith not by works--may naturally,\nwhen taken by themselves and isolated from their context, lead to a\nfalse thought of God as morally 'easy going,' and to a corrupt laxity\nof conduct.  Such a result has shown itself within the area of modern\nhistory in the antinomianism of some Protestant bodies.  But long\nbefore the Reformation St. Paul's words were 'wrested by the ignorant\nand unstedfast to their own destruction[1].'  It was probably a\nmisunderstanding of St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith which\ncalled forth the protest of St. James' epistle.  And indeed the traces\nof this tendency to pervert the gospel are apparent enough in {179} St.\nPaul's own epistles.  Divine grace, it was even argued, can better show\nits largeness if we afford it an opportunity by the abundance of our\nsin.  'Let us continue in sin that grace may abound.'  To this\nmonstrous suggestion St. Paul replies, in his epistle to the Romans[2],\nthat it rests on a complete misconception.  Christian faith is an\nintroduction into Christ.  Believing we are baptized into Him.  This\nmeans that we are to live as He lived towards the world of sin and\ntowards God.  It means that we surrender ourselves in a spirit of glad\nobedience to be moulded after His pattern.  If our believing does not\nlead to this new living, beyond all question it is a spurious thing,\nand none of the Christian privileges attach to it.  With a similar\npurpose St. Paul writes here to the Asiatics--newly-made Christians,\nwho lived in the midst of an appallingly corrupt society, and whose\ninherited traditions of conduct were altogether lacking in\nself-restraint--to warn them against possible abuses of their Christian\nprivileges and Christian liberty.\n\nTo be a Christian is to be committed to a new life different utterly\nfrom the old life.\n\nWhat was the old life?  In writing to the {180} Romans St. Paul\ndescribes the life of the contemporary heathen world as having its\norigin in a refusal of the will to acknowledge God.  'They glorified\nHim not as God.'  'They refused to have God in their knowledge.'  Hence\na darkening of the understanding.  'They became vain in their\nreasonings; their senseless hearts were darkened; professing themselves\nto be wise they became fools.'  This explains the origin and\npossibility of so foolish a worship as that of men and beasts.\nFurther, with the obscuring of the intelligence there was a perversion\nand emancipation of the passions, resulting in all forms of lawlessness\nand unnatural vice.  A similar description of the 'old life' St. Paul\ngives here.  The root of evil here also appears to be in the 'heart'\n(or will)--'the hardening of the heart'; hence arises 'vanity of the\nmind,' an aimlessness or loss of all true and fixed point of view, a\n'darkening of the understanding,' an inherent 'ignorance'; and\naccompanying this loss of real intelligence has been a loss of what is\nthe true goal of human life, fellowship in 'the life of God.'  Instead\nof that a life of uncleanness has prevailed, made into a regular\nbusiness[3], and pursued with 'greediness,' i.e. an entire disregard\n{181} for others' rights--such a life as is only possible where all\ntrue human feeling and good taste has been quenched.  Men have become\n'past feeling.'\n\nAs regards the relation of this black picture to the actual facts,\nenough has perhaps been said above.  At least St. Paul's picture is\ngiven as a direct challenge to the experience of those to whom he\nwrites; and it is not blacker, at any rate, than the picture given by a\nphilosophic contemporary at Ephesus, who calls himself Heracleitus.\nAnd on the black background of this 'former manner of life,' this 'old\nman' or old manhood--a life ruled by lusts which are not only morally\nevil but deceive and mock those who yield to them, leading, in fact, to\nnothing but corruption and death, a 'waxing corrupt after the lusts of\ndeceit'--St. Paul sketches in the new life in Christ.  To become a\nbeliever is to submit one's intelligence to learn a new lesson, to\nstudy Christ; it is to yield one's self to a 'form of teaching[4]' in\norder to have one's life refashioned in marked contrast to old and\nabandoned ways of life; it is to imbibe a new principle in the heart of\none's rational being, 'to be renewed in the spirit of one's mind'; it\nis to put on deliberately, as a man puts on clothing, {182} a new\nmanhood, Christ's manhood, which is 'according to God[5],' that is, is\nbased on His own life, and is His 'new creation' in righteousness and\nholiness.  And this righteousness and holiness can never deceive us by\nfalse promises, because they are rooted in 'truth' or reality.\n\n\nThis I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer walk\nas the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, being darkened\nin their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the\nignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart; who\nbeing past feeling gave themselves up to lasciviousness, to work all\nuncleanness with greediness.  But ye did not so learn Christ; if so be\nthat ye heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth is in Jesus:\nthat ye put away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old\nman, which waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit; and that ye be\nrenewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which after\nGod hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.\n\n\nThere is one phrase in this passage which may need some further\ncomment--'The life of God.'  Into God's own eternal life, as He lives\nit in Himself, we are given but glimpses.  But God is also living in\nthe world as its inherent life, and each form of creation participates\nin its measure, even if unconsciously, in the life {183} of God.\nConsciously and intelligently man was intended to participate in it,\nbut he 'alienated' himself from it by sin; and, while he was physically\nsustained in life by God, morally and mentally he was an exile.  But\nChrist embodies the divine life anew in human form, and by His Spirit\nimparts it as a new life to men.  Once more in Christ men live both 'in\nGod' and 'according to God.'\n\nThis thought of our relation to the life of God is, in part, expressed\nin the Latin original of the Collect for the ninth Sunday after\nTrinity, in which we pray 'that we who cannot exist without Thee, may\nbe enabled to live according to Thee.'\n\n\n\n[1] 2 Pet. iii. 16.\n\n[2] Rom. vi. 1 ff.\n\n[3] 'To work all uncleanness.'  Marg. 'to make a trade of.'\n\n[4] Rom. vi. 17.\n\n[5] Eph. iv. 24, R. V. Marg. 'the new man which is after God, created,'\n&c.\n\n\n\n\n{184}\n\nDIVISION II.  Sec. 2.  CHAPTER IV. 25-32.\n\n_The new life a corporate life._\n\n[Sidenote: _Corporate duties_]\n\nThe first characteristic of the new life dwelt upon is its corporate\ncharacter, as a life lived by those who are 'members one of another,'\nand have therefore a common aim.  In a body of people working with a\ncommon aim there may be a healthy rivalry and competition in doing good\nwork, a manifold spirit of initiation and inventiveness, and there may\nbe rewards of labour, proportioned not merely to needs but to these\npersonal excellences.  But what there cannot be is a competition which\nruns to the point of mutual destructiveness, or such accumulation of\nthe fruits of skill and labour in a few hands as maims or starves the\nlife of the majority.  The common interest prevents this.  'The members\nmust have the same care one of another,' so that 'when one member\nsuffers all the members suffer with it[1].'  The life is the life {185}\nof a body, and the general well-being is therefore the common interest\nof all the members, for the weakening or decay of one is the weakening\nand decay of a more or less valuable part of a connected life.  This is\nthe general principle on which the Church is based.  This is the moral\nmeaning of churchmanship.  'Ye are members one of another.'\n\nVarious specific obligations follow from this general principle.\n\n(a) _Truthfulness and openness_; for falsehood and concealment belong\nto a life of separated and conflicting interests.  The prophetic ideal\nfor the restored Israel is to be realized among Christians.  'Speak ye\nevery man truth with his neighbour: execute the judgement of truth and\npeace in your gates: and let none of you imagine evil in your hearts\nagainst his neighbour: and love no false oath[2].'\n\n(b) _Self-restraint in temper_.  We must not injure one another in life\nand limb, or wound one another in feelings.  Therefore we must watch\nthe first beginnings of anger, as the Psalmist[3] warns us, lest they\nlead to sin and give {186} the devil, i.e. the slanderer of his\nbrethren, the inspirer of all mutual recriminations, room and scope to\nwork in.\n\n(c) _Labour for the purpose of mutual beneficence_.  Under the old\ncovenant God had contented Himself with forbidding stealing.  Under the\nnew covenant the prohibition of what is wrong passes into the\ninjunction of what is right.  Labour of whatever kind, labour directed\nto produce something good, is required of all.  'If any man will not\nwork, neither let him eat[4].'  The idle man in fact violates the\nfundamental conditions of the Christian covenant as truly as if he were\ndenying the rudiments of the Christian faith.  Now the object of\nlabouring is to acquire 'property,' which is in one sense 'private,'\nand in another sense is not.  The labourer may have, under his own free\nadministration, the fruits of his labour, but he is to administer his\nproperty with the motive, not only of supporting himself, but of\nhelping his weaker and more needy brethren.\n\n(d) _Profitable speech_.  Here again the Christian is not to be content\nwith avoiding noxious conversation.  His talk is to be, not indeed\n'edifying' in the narrowest sense, but such as {187} 'builds up what is\nlacking' in life, or supplies a need, whether by counselling, or\ninforming, or refreshing, or cheering; so that it may 'give grace[5],'\nthat is, afford pleasure and, in the widest sense, bring a blessing to\nthe hearers.\n\nIn all their conduct Christians are to have two masterful thoughts.\n(1) They are to think of the divine purpose of the Holy Ghost who has\nentered into the Church to 'seal' or mark it as an elect body destined\nfor full redemption from all evil, in body and soul, at the climax of\nGod's dealings, the last day.  The Holy Ghost, with all His personal\nlove, will be grieved if we thwart His rich purpose for the whole body\nby anything which is contrary to brotherhood in the thoughts of our\nhearts, or the words of our lips, or our outward conduct.\n\n(2) They are to remember the divine pattern of life.  God has shown His\nown heart to us in the free forgiveness which He has given us in\nChrist.  Being in constant receipt of that forgiveness, we must not\nprove ourselves hard and unforgiving towards one another.\n\n\n{188}\n\nWherefore, putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his\nneighbour: for we are members one of another.  Be ye angry, and sin\nnot: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the\ndevil.  Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour,\nworking with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof\nto give to him that hath need.  Let no corrupt speech proceed out of\nyour mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that\nit may give grace to them that hear.  And grieve not the Holy Spirit of\nGod, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption.  Let all\nbitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and railing, be put away\nfrom you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another,\ntenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave\nyou.\n\n\nHere, then, St. Paul sketches catholicity in practice.  The very idea\nof the Church is that of a fellowship of naturally unlike individuals,\nharmonized into unity by the new 'truth and grace' of God, which has\nbeen made theirs in their regenerate life.  It is this endowment of the\nregenerate life that is to enable them to transcend, and overstep, and\ndefeat natural incompatibilities of temper, and to be one body in\nChrist.  The practical meaning of catholicity is brotherhood.  It is\nlove, as St. Augustine says, grown as wide as the world[6].\n\nWhy has the world lost this sense of the {189} moral meaning of\ncatholic churchmanship?  Why has 'ecclesiastical' come to mean\nsomething quite different to 'brotherly'?  Or it is a more profitable\nquestion to ask, How shall we make it mean the same thing again?  There\nare many who would give up the very effort after recovering the church\nprinciple, the obligation of the 'one body.'  But this, as has been\nsaid, is to abandon the ultimate catholic principle of Christianity.\nFor the very purpose of the one church for all the men of faith in\nJesus, is that the necessity for belonging to one body--a necessity\ngrounded on divine appointment--shall force together into a unity men\nof all sorts and different kinds; and the forces of the new life which\nthey share in common are to overcome their natural repugnance and\nantipathies, and to make the forbearance and love and mutual\nhelpfulness which corporate life requires, if not easy, at least\npossible for them.\n\nThis is the principle which must not be abandoned.  We must assert the\ntheological principle of the Church because it is that and that alone\nwhich can impress on men practically the obligation and possibility of\na catholic brotherhood.\n\nBut it is folly to assert the theological truth of {190} churchmanship,\nand neglect its moral meaning.  Quite recently the bishops of the\nLambeth Conference have striven to impress anew the ethics of\nchurchmanship upon the conscience of the faithful[7].  The principle of\nbrotherhood must act as a constant counterpoise to the instinct of\ncompetition.  The principle of labour shows that the idle and selfish\nare 'out of place' in a Christian community.  The principle of justice\nforces us to recognize that the true interest of each member of the\nbody politic must be consulted.  The principle of public responsibility\nreminds us that each one is his brother's keeper.  Once more the Church\nhas been aroused to its prophetic task of 'binding' and 'loosing' the\nconsciences of men in regard specially to those matters which concern\nthe corporate life and the relations of classes to one another.  And we\npray God that the work of our bishops may not be in vain.  What we want\nis not more Christians, but, much rather, better Christians--that is to\nsay, Christians who have more perception of what the moral effort\nrequired for membership in the catholic brotherhood really is.\n\n{191}\n\nNo doubt the needed social reformation is of vast difficulty.  For\ninstance, one who contemplates our commercial relations in the world\nmay indeed be tempted to despair of the possibility of recovering the\npractical application to 'business' of the law of truthfulness; and\nmany a one who is practically engaged in commerce, in higher or lower\nstation, finds that to act upon the law may involve something like\nmartyrdom.  But the very meaning of divine faith is that we do, in\nspite of all discouragements, hold that to be practicable which is the\nwill of God; and it is nothing new in the history of Christianity if at\na crisis we need 'the blood of martyrs'--or something morally\nequivalent to their blood--for 'a seed,' the seed of a fresh growth of\nChristian corporate life.  No fresh start worth making is possible\nwithout personal sacrifices; and to recover anything resembling St.\nPaul's ethical standard for Christian society we need indeed a fresh\nstart.  But the few Tractarians of sixty years ago by industry,\npatience and prayer effected a kind of revolution in the Church as a\nwhole; and reformers of Christian social relations may with the same\nweapons--and with no other--do the like.\n\n\n\n[1] 1 Cor. xii. 25, 26.\n\n[2] Zech. viii. 16, 17.\n\n[3] Ps. iv. 4, according to the LXX.  But the English version 'Stand in\nawe and sin not' is probably correct.\n\n[4] 2 Thess. iii. 10.\n\n[5] Cf. Col. iv. 6: 'Let your speech be always with grace' or\n'graciousness'; Luke iv. 22: 'gracious words'; Ps. xlv. 2: 'Grace is\npoured into thy lips'; Eccles. x. 12: 'The words of a wise man's mouth\nare gracious'; Ecclus. xxi. 16: 'Grace shall be found in the lips of\nthe wise.'\n\n[6] See app. note F, p. 271, _The Ethics of Catholicism_.\n\n[7] See _Report of Lambeth Conference_, 1897.  S.P.C.K., pp. 136 ff.;\nand app. note G, p. 274.\n\n\n\n\n{192}\n\nDIVISION II.  Sec. 3.  CHAPTER V. 1-14.\n\n_The Christian life an imitation of God and a life in the light._\n\n[Sidenote: _The imitation of God_]\n\nSt. Paul has just suggested the thought of imitating God by ready\nforgiveness.  And in fact here--in the imitation of God--is one of the\ngreatest of the new ideas and motives which Christianity supplies.  God\nhas manifested Himself in Christ under human conditions.  He has\ntranslated the unimaginable Godhead into terms of our own well-known\nhuman nature.  For Christ is very man, yet He is the Son of God, truly\nGod, and His character is God's character.  For the Christian\nhenceforth in a quite new sense God is imitable: He can become a\npattern for actual human life.  As children partly consciously and\npartly unconsciously imitate their parents, so we Christians as\n'beloved children' are to 'become imitators of God.'\n\nAnd it is quite plain what the character of {193} God as manifested in\nChrist is.  It is love; and to imitate God is therefore to 'walk in\nlove,' that is, to conduct one's life with love as its conscious motive\nand atmosphere.  Moreover, the love of Christ is a love which shows\nitself in self-sacrifice.  'He offered himself as an offering and\nsacrifice to God on our behalf; and God, who had of old made it plain\nby His prophets that He could find no satisfaction in animal victims,\naccepted 'as a sweet savour' this free-will offering of\nself-sacrificing love.  In the self-sacrifice of Christ, therefore, we\nhave the clear disclosure both of what God is and of what God will\naccept from man.\n\nBut this ideal of life as lying in love and in the deliberate\nself-sacrifice of one for another is the plain negation of some maxims\nfor life generally accepted in heathen society.  It is the plain\nnegation of sensual self-indulgence at the expense of others, or at the\nexpense of our spiritual nature, of 'fornication and uncleanness of all\nkinds,' of filthy conduct, of the sort of jesting or wit which ignores\nall moral restraints.  It is the plain negation again of selfish greed\nor the unlimited desire to get--'covetousness.'  These things are out\nof the question for a body of saints, that is, men dedicated to a holy\nGod.\n\n{194}\n\n[Sidenote: _Life in the light_]\n\nThe tone and language which befits such a dedicated life is the tone\nand language of thanksgiving.  But clearly Asiatic Christians were only\ntoo ready to forget the essential incompatibility of their new\nprofession with the old sinful habits around them.  So St. Paul\nemphasizes 'This ye know for certain that fornication or unclean living\non the one hand, or the turning of gain into a god on the other, surely\nexcludes a man from the kingdom of Christ and God[1].'  And he\nreiterates 'let no man deceive you with empty words.'  Such vices,\nbeing in plain contradiction to the divine will, make men subjects of\nthe divine wrath, and for you this should be startlingly plain.  You\nhave been brought out of the realm of darkness of which once you formed\na part, into the realm of light, of which you now form a part, the\nrealm whose light is Christ.  There is no fellowship between the light\nand the darkness[2].  To live in the light means to bring forth fruit\nof goodness and righteousness and truth, the fruit of a character like\nChrist's.  For you have in Christ a definite standard by which you can\ntest what is well pleasing to the {195} Lord.  It is your business,\ntherefore, to keep yourselves altogether separate from the works of\ndarkness which bear no fruit.  Not only so, but it is your business to\n'reprove' or convict the dark world of sin; not, of course, by making\nthe works of darkness the subjects of your curiosity and\nconversation--that indeed must not be--but simply by the contrast which\nyour own lives present.  In the light of your lives the secret shame of\nthe heathen life will be unmasked.  And in being unmasked even the\nworks of darkness will themselves become part of the light.  To make\nsuch ways of living attractive they must be cloaked up in a deceitful\nglamour.  Once stripped bare and shown in their true character they\nteach their true lesson.  Thus, the one duty of a man is to awake from\nthe old sleep of death; to separate himself from the morally dead world\nand stand clear in the light of Christ.  And that is what the early\nChristian hymn, which St. Paul cites, was continually impressing upon\nthe Christian conscience.  We may attempt to reproduce it in something\nlike its original rhythm thus:--\n\n  'Be awakened, thou that sleepest;\n  Rise alive from out the dead world;\n  Christ, the Light, shall shine upon thee.'\n\n\n{196}\n\nBe ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in\nlove, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an\noffering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell.  But\nfornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be\nnamed among you, as becometh saints; nor filthiness, nor foolish\ntalking, or jesting, which are not befitting: but rather giving of\nthanks.  For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean\nperson, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in\nthe kingdom of Christ and God.  Let no man deceive you with empty\nwords: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the\nsons of disobedience.  Be not ye therefore partakers with them; for ye\nwere once darkness, but are now light in the Lord: walk as children of\nlight (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness\nand truth), proving what is well-pleasing unto the Lord; and have no\nfellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even\nreprove them; for the things which are done by them in secret it is a\nshame even to speak of.  But all things when they are reproved are made\nmanifest by the light: for everything that is made manifest is light.\nWherefore _he_ saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the\ndead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.\n\n\nThree points may be noticed in this characteristic exhortation:--\n\n1.  The strife of light and darkness.  The victory of the rising sun\nand its surrender at evening to the darkness; the obscuring of the\nlight through eclipse or mist and its recovery--these {197} universal\nappearances present themselves naturally to human consciences\neverywhere as being experiences analogous to the moral strife within\nbetween good and evil.  Light is thus the universal symbol of good, and\ndarkness of evil.  The symbolism passes out of early native myths into\nthe spiritual phraseology of many religions; but especially into those\nof the Persians and the Jews.  'In thy light shall we see light' is the\ncry of the devout heart towards God.  And the whole of Christian\nlanguage is possessed by the symbolism.  Christ is 'the light of the\nworld': His disciples are 'the children of light,' they are to be\nclothed in 'the armour of light,' bathed in 'the light of the glorious\nGospel': they are the children of the God who 'dwelleth in the light\nwhich no man can approach unto': who 'is light and in whom is no\ndarkness at all.'\n\nSt. Paul, like St. John, specially loves the metaphor of light.  And it\nis somewhat startling to notice how different is his conception of\nenlightenment from that common in modern times, or indeed, from that\nheld in the schools of philosophy of his own day or by the Gnostics\njust after him.  This latter class of men, who can be taken as typical\nof many others at very {198} different epochs, meant by 'the\nenlightened' a select few who had a special capacity for intellectual\nabstraction and contemplation, and who by such qualities of the\nintellect were believed to attain to a knowledge of God which was\nbeyond the reach of the ordinary men of faith.  But St. Paul, following\nhis Master, is quite certain that the root of true enlightenment lies\nin the will and heart.  The love of the light is first of all simply\nthe pure desire for goodness; and anything that is not this first of\nall is a counterfeit and a sham.  And the true enlightenment is thus\nnot the privilege of a few, but is open to all who will come to Christ.\n'Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this\nworld?  Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For seeing\nthat in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it\nwas God's good pleasure, through the foolishness of the preaching, to\nsave them that believe.'  'If any man thinketh that he is wise among\nyou in this world, let him become a fool that he may become wise.  For\nthe wisdom of this world is foolishness with God[3].'  This language\nsounds violent; but I doubt if many thinking men could now be found\n{199} to doubt that the way opened by the 'foolishness of the gospel\npreaching' was a way of light for the world compared to which the way\nof the contemporary philosophers was darkness and delusion.  The\narrogant wisdom of the contemporary 'Heracleitus' would have provided\nno real light at all for the Ephesians whom he denounced.  A fresh\nstart was wanted for man, and the fresh start was primarily in the life\nof the conscience and heart.  On the other hand neither St. Paul, nor\nany of the New Testament writers, can be accused of the sort of\nobscurantism to which the later Church has often fallen a victim.  One\ncannot even conceive St. Paul denouncing free inquiry, or cloaking up\nfrom free investigation the title-deeds of Christianity.  His love of\nthe light--even with all the dangers that the light has--like his love\nof freedom, is frank and real.\n\nIf we come down to our own time, there is no doubt a great deal of\ncontemporary 'enlightenment' that St. Paul would have pronounced\nspurious.  He would never surely have disparaged intellectual inquiry\nor free scientific research: but he would have continually emphasized\nthat no one was really enlightened whose will and heart was not right\nwith God.  {200} To have a scientific knowledge of facts is by\ncomparison superficial; and worse than superficial is the sharpness and\nworldly cleverness which continually boasts of being 'wide awake' and\n'up to date.'  It is possible to be awake and enlightened in the\nspeculative and practical intelligence: to be awake and enlightened in\nthe region of the senses: and yet to be asleep and in the dark in the\nregion of the will and conscience towards God.  And there lies the true\nheart of manhood.  It is possible even to be enlightened about evil and\nin the dark as regards goodness.  But St. Paul hates curiosity about\nthe ways and methods of sin.  'I would,' he says, 'have you wise unto\nthat which is good, and simple unto that which is evil[4].'  Take heed\nthat the light that is in thee be not darkness.  This curiosity about\nsin is a delusion which has sometimes a strange hold on some who would\nserve God.  But they must recognize that the only Christian method of\n'convicting the world of sin' is by 'convicting it of righteousness.'\nInnocence has a power which sometimes is strangely underrated.\n\nWe may pause for a moment longer to dwell on the beauty of St. Paul's\nideal of Christianity {201} as a life in the light.  It has everything\nto gain and nothing to lose by disclosure.  It has no need to cloak\nitself.  It can be frank with itself and the world.  And, on the other\nhand, sin is a great fraud and delusion as well as a great\ndisobedience.  It dwells in a region of lies and excuses and\nconcealments; it hides from itself and from the world its true\ncharacter and true issues.  For, in fact, it is not only in itself foul\nand rebellious, but it is in its issues fruitless.  It leads to\nnothing: it produces nothing: it tends only to decay or corruption of\nmind and body, while goodness is only another term for life and\nfruitfulness.  Life, and the production of life, is the good, and it\nbelongs to the light; on the contrary, what hinders or destroys life\ngoes against God and belongs to the darkness.  This is a judgement\nwhich mis-called disciples of Malthus in our day would do well to\nremember.  It is not from too much life that the world is suffering,\nbut from corrupt and perverted life.  What we want to secure is not a\nlimit to the population, but the bringing up of children in health and\nsimple living, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.\n\n2.  St. Paul, in some passages of his epistles, uses very strongly\n'universalist' phrases.  He {202} has spoken to the Ephesians of\nbringing all things in heaven and earth again into a divine unity in\nChrist.  And to the Corinthians he spoke of a time when God should be\n'all things in all.'  It is, therefore, all the more noticeable that\nwhen he comes to speak of the destiny of evil men he does not offer\nthem any hope if they persist in their evil, but warns them that moral\nevil utterly and wholly excludes from the kingdom of God: and he\nappears to be not at all anxious to reconcile this warning as to the\neternal consequences of wilful evil with what he has said in other\nconnexions as to the final inclusion of all things in a great unity.\nHis example would teach us to aim at being true to the whole truth\nrather than at attaining a premature completeness or consistency of\nknowledge about a world in regard to which we only 'know in part.'\n'Yea, the more part of God's works are hid[5].'\n\n3.  We cannot fail to notice how constantly St. Paul associates lawless\nlust with lawless grasping at money or the goods of other\nmen--greediness or avarice.  This has led some to suppose that the\nGreek word for greediness is really intended to mean lust in its\ngrasping {203} character.  But this is a mistake.  The words are\nassociated partly, no doubt, because lust so often involves an\n'overreaching and wronging our brothers[6]' of their just rights; but\nmuch more because the lawless grasping after gain and the lawless\ngrasping after pleasure are the two great perversions of the human\nsoul.  Pleasure and mammon are the two typical idols.\n\n\n\n[1] Possibly this expression means 'the kingdom of Him who is at once\nChrist and God.'\n\n[2] 2 Cor. vi. 14.\n\n[3] 1 Cor. i. 20, 21; iii. 18.\n\n[4] Rom. xvi. 19.\n\n[5] Ecclus. xvi. 21.\n\n[6] 1 Thess. iv. 6.\n\n\n\n\n{204}\n\nDIVISION II.  Sec. 4.  CHAPTER V. 15-21.\n\n_The Christian life a zealous and deliberate seizing of the opportunity\nafforded by surrounding moral evils._\n\n[Sidenote: _Buying up the opportunity_]\n\nThe Christian stands awake and in the light.  He has a vantage-ground\nof spiritual knowledge, and the opportunity afforded by this\nvantage-ground he is to use.  He is not to live at random but is to\nfashion his life with deliberate circumspection and prudence in order\nto make the best of the spiritual opportunity, just as the merchant\ncleverly seizes and uses to his own advantage a particular commercial\nsituation.  What gives the Christian his spiritual opportunity is the\ncorruption which surrounds him.  Of that corruption St. Paul has\nalready said enough.  The result of it was to leave whatever was good\nin man disconsolate and ill at ease.  The exhibition of the Christian\nlight amidst such surroundings could not but arrest men's attention and\nattract {205} their hearts.  And if we want to be informed, in greater\ndetail, how to buy up the opportunity, St. Paul's answer is threefold.\n\nFirst, there must be a positive apprehension of the divine will in\nparticular cases such as qualifies for decisive action.  'Be not\nfoolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.'  This is the\nsort of wisdom which enables a man to do what our Lord expects of\nspiritual leaders, to 'discern the time.'  It is a rare quality but,\naccording to the measure of the gift of Christ to each, it is attained\nby spiritual thoughtfulness, singlemindedness, and prayer.\n\nSecondly, there is to be a strong and sociable enthusiasm, expressing\nitself in uninterrupted joy, and based upon deep draughts of the divine\nSpirit.  In St. Paul's day, as in our own, men would seek escape from\nthe dullness of life and its sense of isolation in the excitement and\nfellowship which comes of intoxicating drink.  Other forms of mental\nintoxication were provided at Ephesus by a sensual religious\nenthusiasm.  St. Paul would have the Christians confront such lawless\nexcitement not merely with the spectacle of discipline and\nself-restraint, but also with a counter-enthusiasm, purer but not less\nstrong.  Christians are to find an {206} excitement as strong as\ndrunkenness, and a fellowship as warm as is to be found in any band of\nrevellers, in deep draughts of the wine of the Holy Ghost.  'Be not\ndrunken with wine wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit,\nspeaking one to another in psalms[1] and hymns and spiritual songs\n(such as the one he has just quoted), singing and making melody with\nyour hearts to the Lord.'\n\nLastly, there is to be a spirit of submission, mutual accommodation and\norder.  The disciples are to 'subject themselves one to another in the\nfear of Christ.'  They are, as St. Peter says[2], to be girt each one\nwith the apron of service to minister to one another's needs, knowing\ntheir responsibility to Christ, and how He looks for obedience and\nservice in all men.  Enthusiasm is apt to be lawless, but the\nenthusiasm of the Christians is to be the enthusiasm of an organized\nbody.  It was said of old of the men of Issachar, who gathered round\nthe standard of David[3], that they had 'understanding of the times to\nknow what Israel ought {207} to do; the heads of them were two hundred,\nand all their brethren were at their commandment.'  A similar spirit of\npractical religious understanding, with a similar readiness to obey\ntheir leaders, is what St. Paul desires in the new Israel to do the\nwork of the true Son of David.\n\nA temper then of clear positive understanding as to what God wills to\nbe done in the immediate future, fired by an ardent and sociable\nenthusiasm, and associated with a disinterested readiness to obey one\nanother in practical affairs--this is what St. Paul means by 'looking\ncarefully how we walk'; and it is worth while noticing that St. Paul's\nconception of carefulness leads in a direction quite opposed to mere\ntimorous and negative prudence.  Exhortations not to be rash, but to\n'look before you leap,' are very commonly given by the wise.  But it\ndoes not seem to be generally remembered that, at least in the service\nof God, most men err by excess not of rashness but of caution, and\n'look' so long that they never 'leap.'  Truly if rashness has slain its\nthousands, irresolution has slain its ten thousands.  The spirit St.\nPaul would have us cultivate is not this cowardly mis-called wisdom,\nbut rather the spirit of the ideal soldier, of the 'happy warrior.'\nNothing, {208} in fact, could be more fascinating than the picture St.\nPaul here draws of the Christian community.  He has a vision of a pure\nbrotherly enthusiastic society, fulfilled with a divine life, and\nattracting into its warm and comfortable fellowship the isolated,\nweary, hopeless, and sin-stained from the cold dark world outside.\n\n\nLook therefore carefully how ye walk, not as unwise, but as wise;\nredeeming the time, because the days are evil.  Wherefore be ye not\nfoolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.  And be not\ndrunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit;\nspeaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,\nsinging and making melody with your heart to the Lord; giving thanks\nalways for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even\nthe Father; subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.\n\n\nSt. Paul's exhortation to 'buy up the opportunity because the days are\nevil' finds fresh application in every generation.  For each generation\nthe 'days are evil,' and good men always feel them to be so.  Not\nnecessarily that they are evil by comparison with other days, for the\n'good old times' certainly never existed, and it is not often possible\nto balance the evils of one age against those of another.  It is enough\n{209} for us to understand 'the ills we have.'  What they are in our\nown generation is conspicuous enough.  In part they are the normal\nevils of selfishness, and sensuality, and pride, and weakness; of\ndivisions of races and classes, and personal uncharity.  In part they\nare special: I will not make any general attempt to characterize them\nhere.  But it is probably true to say that, among other characteristics\nwhich our generation exhibits, is a lack of great enthusiasms and\nstrong convictions and inspiring leaders.  Literature, philosophy, and\npolitics are alike lacking in a clear moral impulse.  'Causes' are at a\ndiscount.  Men are disillusionized.  It is a 'fin de siecle' by some\nbetter title than a chronological mistake.  It is this characteristic\nof the moment that ought to give the Church its opportunity.  At\npresent she largely fails to take it because she lacks concentration\nwithin her own body.  The true disciples, the faithful remnant, exist\nin every place, but they are lost in the crowd.  They need to be drawn\ntogether if they are to make an impression.  A vigorous faith, and the\nconfident hope for humanity which a vigorous faith begets, were never\nbetter calculated than they are to-day to produce a right moral\nimpression on the world, owing to the {210} mere absence of rival\nenthusiasms.  We can supply what is wanted if only everywhere we will\ncultivate sincerity and enthusiasm rather than numbers, and aim at\nforming strong centres of spiritual life, rather than a weak uniform\ndiffusion of it.\n\n\n\n[1] St. Paul is in part referring to the habit of responsive or\nantiphonal chanting, which Pliny, the governor of Bithynia, reports as\ncharacteristic of the Christians half a century later--'to sing\nresponsively (secum invicem) a hymn to Christ as a God.'\n\n[2] 1 Pet. v. 5.\n\n[3] 1 Chron. xii. 32.\n\n\n\n\n{211}\n\nDIVISION II.  Sec. 5.  CHAPTERS V. 22-VI. 9.\n\n_The relation of husbands and wives: parents and children: masters and\nservants._\n\n[Sidenote: _The law of subordination_]\n\nSt. Paul mentions submission as required, in a sense, from all\nChristians towards all others--'submitting yourselves one to another.'\nBut it is plain that in any community, and most of all in a Christian\ncommunity where order is a divine principle, some will be specially\n'under authority': and accordingly St. Paul applies his general maxim\nto three classes in particular--wives towards their husbands, children\ntowards their parents, slaves towards their masters.  But in making\nthese applications of the law of obedience, he enlarges his subject by\nincluding the counter-balancing principle of the duty of\nself-sacrificing love on the part of those in authority; so that he\ntreats not one side of the relation only but both.\n\n\n{212}\n\nA.  HUSBANDS AND WIVES.  (V. 22-33.)\n\n[Sidenote: _Husbands and wives_]\n\nWives are to be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.  Just as\nthe divine fatherhood is the ground of all lower fatherhood, so the\nauthority of the one great Head is the ground in all lower headships,\nand each in its place is to be accepted as the shadow of His.  Thus the\nhusband's headship over his wife is the shadow of Christ's headship\nover the church, and that explains of what sort the husband's authority\nshould be.  For Christ's rule is a rule for the advantage of the ruled.\nHe rules the church as Himself its saviour or deliverer from bondage,\nand the word 'saviour' is full of associations of self-sacrificing\nlove.  So must it be with a Christian husband.  But Christ is not\nmerely a head to the church.  He too is a husband.  This idea of God as\nthe husband of His people--an idea which expressed both His choice of\nthem, His love for them, and His jealous claim upon them--is familiar\nin the Old Testament.  'Thy Maker is thy husband.'  'I am a husband\nunto you, saith the Lord[1].'  And it is probable, as Dr. Cheyne\nsuggests, 'that the so-called Song of Solomon was admitted into the\ncanon {213} on the ground that the bride of the poem symbolized the\nchosen people[2].'  But in a Christian sense the idea gains a fresh\nmeaning.  'We that are joined unto the Lord are of one spirit' with\nHim[3].  We are the 'members of his body'; and, as drawing our life\nfrom His manhood, we may be even said to be, like Eve from Adam, 'of\nhis flesh and of his bones[4].'  Christ then is, in this richness of\nmeaning, the husband of the church.\n\nSt. Paul seems further to describe this relation of Christ to the\nchurch under the figure of three marriage customs.  The husband first\nacquires the object of his affection as his bride by a dowry: then by a\nbath of purification the bride is prepared for the husband: finally she\nis presented to him in bridal beauty.  Accordingly Christ, because He\nloved the church, first 'gave himself for her'; and we may interpret\nthis phrase in the light of another used by St. Paul in his speech to\nthe Ephesian elders, where the church is spoken of as 'purchased' or\n{214} 'acquired[5]' by Christ's blood.  Having thus acquired the Church\nfor His bride, He secondly 'cleansed her in the laver[6] of water with\nthe word': and that, in order that He might 'sanctify her' and so\nfinally 'present the church to himself a glorious church, not having\nspot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and\nwithout blemish.'\n\nThis threefold statement has great theological interest which we will\nconsider shortly.  Here we will simply let it stand, as St. Paul uses\nit, to exhibit Christ as the ideal husband, the pattern for every\nhusband.  Love for his bride; self-sacrifice in order to win her; and\nthe deliberate aiming at moral perfection for her through the bridal\nunion--that is the law for him.  The wife, according to the original\ndivine principle, is to be part of the man's self--one flesh with him.\nHe must love her truly and care for her as his own flesh.  This\n'mystery,' or divine secret revealed, is great, St. Paul says; 'but in\nsaying this I am thinking of Christ and his church.'  This seems to be\nthe exact force of verse 32.  In other words--this divine disclosure of\nthe relation of God to man, as realized in the marriage of Christ and\nHis church, is indeed great and lofty.  {215} But, St. Paul continues\nin effect, great and lofty as it is, it is a practical pattern for us.\nDo ye also, as Christ the church, severally love each one his own wife\neven as himself, and let the wife see that she fear (i.e. reverence and\nfear to displease) her husband, even as the church stands in holy awe\nof Christ.\n\n\nWives, _be in subjection_ unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.\nFor the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of\nthe church, _being_ himself the saviour of the body.  But as the church\nis subject to Christ, so _let_ the wives also _be_ to their husbands in\neverything.  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the\nchurch, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having\ncleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might\npresent the church to himself a glorious _church_, not having spot or\nwrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without\nblemish.  Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their\nown bodies.  He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man\never hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as\nChrist also the church; because we are members of his body.  For this\ncause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his\nwife; and the twain shall become one flesh.  This mystery is great: but\nI speak in regard of Christ and of the church.  Nevertheless do ye also\nseverally love each one his own wife even as himself; and _let_ the\nwife _see_ that she fear her husband.\n\n\nThere are several points here which need consideration.\n\n{216}\n\n1.  There is a rich theology in St. Paul's brief description of the\nrelation of Christ to the church.  First, there is Christ's love for\nthe church which involves a purpose of entire sanctification for her;\nthen there is sacrifice, the sacrifice of Himself, for her; then there\nis the baptismal purification of the church to fit her for Christ,\nwhich is in fact nothing else than the baptismal purification of all\nthe individual members of the Christian body; and this is also, as St.\nPaul elsewhere teaches, the means to them of new life by union with\nHimself.  It is their cleansing bath because therein they are 'baptized\ninto Christ.'  (Here, we notice, the analogy of the marriage custom\nbreaks down: what is in the marriage ceremonies only a washing\npreparatory to union, is in the spiritual counterpart also the act of\nunion.  Baptism is both the abandonment of the old and union with the\nnew.)  Lastly, there is the final presentation by Christ of the church\nto Himself in sinless, stainless perfection.\n\nWe observe that Christ's sacrifice is regarded by St. Paul as\npreparatory and relative.  He bought the church by the sacrifice of\nHimself to obtain unimpeded rights over her, because He loved her and\nin order to make her morally {217} perfect.  The atonement has its\nvalue because it is the removal of the obstacles to Christ working His\npositive moral work in her.\n\nWe observe again that the sacrifice of Christ is spoken of as offered\nfor the church, not for the world.  Christ does indeed 'will that all\nmen shall be saved': He did indeed 'take away,' or take up and expiate,\n'the sin of the world' in its totality[7].  But the divine method is\nthat men shall attain their salvation as 'members of Christ's body.'\nThus, if Christ's ultimate object in the divine sacrifice is the world:\nHis immediate object is the church through which He acts upon the world\nand into which He calls every man.  'I pray,' He said, 'not for the\nworld, but for them whom thou hast given me.'  'He gave himself for us\nthat he might redeem us ... and purify unto himself a people for his\nown possession[8].'\n\nOnce more we notice in this passage a significant hint as to St. Paul's\nconception of baptism.  There is no doubt of the spiritual efficacy\nwhich he assigns to it.  And we observe in germ a doctrine of 'matter'\nand 'form' in connexion with the sacraments.  Baptism is a 'washing of\nwater' accompanied by a 'word.'  The word {218} or utterance which St.\nPaul refers to may be the formula of baptism 'into the name of the\nFather and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,' or the 'word of faith' of\nwhich confession is made by the person to be baptized--the confession\nthat 'Jesus is the Lord[9]'; but in either case the word gives the\nrational interpretation to the act.  It sets apart what would be\notherwise like any other act of washing, and stamps it for a spiritual\nand holy purpose.  'Take away the word, and what is the water but mere\nwater?  The word is superadded to the natural element and it becomes a\nsacrament.'  So says St. Augustine[10], in the spirit of St. Paul.\nThis is what is meant by the later theological term 'form[11],' the\n'form' being that which differentiates or determines shapeless 'matter'\nand makes it have a certain significance or gives it a certain\ncharacter.  Thus the form of a sacrament is the word of divine\nappointment which gives it spiritual significance; and the form and\nmatter together are essential to its validity.  The matter of baptism\nis the washing by water: the form is the defining phrase 'I {219}\nbaptize (or wash) thee into the name of the Father and of the Son and\nof the Holy Ghost.'\n\nLastly, we notice that the spiritual union of Christ and His church,\nthough it is perfect in the divine intention from the first, is in fact\nonly consummated at the point where the church is freed from the\nimperfection of sin and has become the stainless counterpart of Christ\nHimself.  The love of Christ--the removal of obstacles to His love by\natoning sacrifice--the act of spiritual purification--the gradual\nsanctification--the consummated union in glory: these are the moments\nof the divine process of redemption, viewed from the side of Christ,\nwhich St. Paul specifies.\n\n2.  We come back to St. Paul's conception of marriage to dissipate\nmisconceptions.  It is indeed absurd to speak as if St. Paul were, in\nthis passage, mainly emphasizing the subjection of the woman, whether\nthis be done from the conservative side 'to keep women in their place':\nor from the point of view of those who desire her emancipation, in\norder to represent St. Paul, and so Christianity as a whole, as giving\nto women a servile position.  Over against the subjection of women, he\nsets, and indeed gives more space to emphasize, the self-sacrifice\n{220} and service which is due to her from the man.  You cannot tear\nthe one from the other.  Like St. Peter so St. Paul would have the\nhusband 'give honour to the wife--as to the weaker vessel' indeed, but\nalso as 'joint heir of the grace of life[12].'  In essential spiritual\nvalue men and women are equal.  'In Christ is neither male nor female.'\nSt. Chrysostom rightly bases on this passage a powerful appeal to\nhusbands to overcome their selfishness in their relation to their\nwives.  There is nothing servile in the subordination required of the\nwoman[13].  If 'the husband is the head of the wife, the head of the\nhusband is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.'  Christ even is\nsubordinate.  And the character of the headship of the husband {221}\naltogether excludes the idea that women are to be married in order to\nserve men's selfish interests or gratify their passions.\n\nThen we must notice that St. Paul is impressing upon us a moral ideal\nof which the two parts are inseparable.  St. Paul says nothing to\nindicate that where the relations are not ideal--where the husband is\nselfish or brutal--law should not step in to protect the interests of\nthe wife and secure her against the insults or cruelties or frauds of\nthe husband.  He is expressing a moral ideal[14]; while law must be\nlargely content with preventing outrage and securing a background on\nwhich ideals can become possible.  And just as St. Paul tells\nChristians that they are to obey magistrates as God's\nministers--leaving it to be understood that when they command what is\ncontrary to God's will, 'we ought to obey God rather than men'; so in\nthe same way he speaks of the wife's (or child's or slave's) duty of\nsubjection, leaving a similar reservation likewise to be tacitly\nunderstood.  Obedience is to be 'in the Lord.'\n\n3.  But no doubt St. Paul does emphasize the subordination of women to\nmen.  He will {222} not ordinarily[15] permit the woman 'to teach (in\nthe public assembly) nor to have dominion over a man[16].'  He clearly\ndoes not think the difference of male and female is merely physical,\nbut perceives that the characteristic moral perils of the sexes[17] are\ndifferent: he assigns to man the governing and authoritative position,\nand to woman the more retired and 'quieter[18]' functions.  It may\nindeed be argued that in certain details St. Paul's injunctions are for\nhis time only, and no more of perpetual obligation than his prohibition\nof second marriages to the clergy is assumed to be, or his\nquasi-recognition of slavery.  But this argument carries us but a\nlittle way.  The most of what St. Paul says of men and women is based\non a principle which he conceives to be divine, and which all history\nand experience confirms.  The position of women in Christendom has\noften fallen far short of what is truly Christian: but no attempted\nrectification will be found otherwise than disastrous which ignores the\nfundamental principle.  All through the animal kingdom mental\ndifferences accompany the physiological difference between the sexes.\nExperience teaches {223} that women, as a whole, are superior to men in\ncertain moral qualities--in self-sacrifice, sympathy, purity, and\ncompassion, and in religious feeling, reverence and devotion: but\ninferior to them in the moral qualities which are concerned with\ngovernment--in justice, love of truth and judgement, in stability and\nreasonableness.  Intellectually women have very often greater quickness\nof apprehension and memory, greater power in learning languages,\ngreater artistic sensibility.  But they are conspicuously inferior in\nthe constructive imagination, in creative genius, in philosophy and\nscience.  It is sometimes said that if women had been as well educated\nas men--and assuredly on Christian principles they ought to be, if\ndifferently, yet equally well educated--they would have created as\nmuch.  Why, then, have almost no women been poets of the first order,\nor musical composers, or painters?  For in these artistic walks of life\ntheir education has been in many countries better and more continuous.\nTo maintain that men and women are only physiologically different is to\nrun one's head against the brick wall of fact and science, no less than\nagainst St. Paul's and St. Peter's principles[19].\n\n{224}\n\nIt remains true that\n\n      'women is not undevelopt man\n  But diverse ... seeing either sex alone\n  Is half itself, and in true marriage lies\n  Nor equal, nor unequal[20].'\n\n\n4.  It is necessary to add something about the position assigned by St.\nPaul, in other epistles, to unmarried women; and to notice the relation\nof his 'theory of women' to earlier Jewish ideas and those current in\ngeneral society.\n\nNothing could well exceed the influence or nobility of the position of\nthe Jewish wife and mistress of the household, as it is given, for\nexample, in the Book of Proverbs[21].  That position St. Paul can\nperpetuate and deepen, but hardly augment.  And the Old Testament\nrecognized an altogether exceptional position in certain women endowed\nwith the gift of prophecy, like Miriam and Deborah and Huldah, who in\nvirtue of their gift exercised a public and {225} quasi-political\nministry.  Thus in the Christian community also there were\nprophetesses, and St. Paul, in the same epistle in which he forbids\nwomen in general to teach in public, seems to leave room for such\nexceptional women to 'pray or prophecy' in the Christian congregation\nwith their heads covered[22].  Thus in fact all down Christian history\nthere have been at intervals exceptional women with unmistakable gifts\nfor guiding souls in private and directing public policy, like St.\nCatherine of Siena, or with gifts of government like St. Hilda, whom\nthe Church has rightly accepted as divinely endowed.  Where\nChristianity appears to have made a fresh departure in regard to women\nwas in the organized consecration of the gift of female ministry.  The\ndeaconesses like Phoebe, and women like Lydia and Priscilla, are most\ncharacteristic Christian figures; and they have a long line of\nsuccessors in later deaconesses and 'widows,' and sisters of mercy, and\nnurses and teachers.  It was the ignominy of the Church of England that\nfor so long she narrowed down the functions of women to those which\nbelong to wives and daughters at home.  Multitudes of {226} women need\nother than domestic spheres and are happier away from home; and we may\nthank God that--apart from the specially political and judicial\nfunctions which are proper to men--the widest sphere of influence and\nservice is now again being thrown open to women.\n\nHow pitiable it was that, in face of all Christian experience and of\nthe authoritative language of the New Testament, unmarried women should\nhave no prospect opened to them but such as was drearily summed up in\nthe phrase 'old maids.'  St. Paul, if in this epistle he is glorifying\nthe married state, certainly also glorifies both for men and women the\nfreedom of the celibate life consecrated to the service of God--the\nconsecration of those who in a special sense are the virgin-brides of\nChrist.  We may be thankful indeed that now, if somewhat tardily, it\nhas received from the largest assembly of Anglican bishops ever\ngathered together an altogether ungrudging recognition[23].\n\nIt has been very frequently observed that, especially in Asia Minor,\nwomen in St. Paul's day were attaining in non-Christian society\npositions of great influence and dignity.  We find them {227} very\ncommonly holding priesthoods and public offices and magistracies.  It\nwould appear, however, that too much may be made of this.  The\npopulations of the Asiatic towns loved to be entertained with expensive\ngames and largesses of money and grain, and to have temples built and\nendowed for them.  Wealthy women of noble families were elected to\npriesthoods and offices where they could exercise their acceptable\nliberality in these ways.  But the offices were rather of dignity than\nof practical government, and were closely associated with priesthoods.\nThere is no evidence that women in Asiatic cities could assist at\nassemblies, or give votes, or speak in public, or serve on legations,\nor enter into political relations with the Roman authorities.  There\nwere women among the Asiarchs, but probably only when they were\nassociated in an honorary manner with their husbands.  In the early\nChristian church the influence of women was put to far nobler uses than\nin Asiatic cities; but their position relatively to men was not far\ndifferent from what would have been recognized in the general society\nof that region[24].  In other parts of the empire the {228} women of\nthe Christian church were conspicuously in advance of those outside.\n\nIn somewhat later days of the Church there was some resentment at the\nhigh and free position assigned to women in the New Testament\ndocuments.  Thus one celebrated MS. of the New Testament[25]--the Codex\nBezae--changes 'not a few of the honourable Greek women and of men'\n(Acts xvii. 12) into 'of the Greeks and the honourable, many men and\nwomen.'  In xvii. 34 it cuts out Damaris.  And in xvii. 4 it changes\nthe 'leading women' into 'wives of the leading men.'  The spirit which\nprompted these changes in an early Christian scribe and reviser, has\nnot been wanting in much later ages, though it had not a chance of\ntampering with our sacred texts.\n\n\nB.  PARENTS AND CHILDREN.  VI. 1-4.\n\n[Sidenote: _Parents and children_]\n\nAfter laying down the principles which determined the relation of wives\nto their husbands, St. Paul turns to the relation of children to their\nparents.  The wives are to be _subordinate_ to their husbands.\nChildren are to be _obedient_ to their parents as part of their duty\n'in the {229} Lord,' as members of His body.  They are to show honour\nto their parents as directed by the commandment which we call the\nfifth, but which St. Paul here probably calls 'a commandment standing\nfirst accompanied with promise.'  It stands first among those which\nrefer to our neighbour grouped apart--as our Lord also says 'Thou\nknowest the commandments,' and then specifies those six alone[26].  And\nit is accompanied with a promise implied in the words 'that it may be\nwell with thee and that thou mayest live long in the land[27]'--a\npromise that the prosperity and permanence of the nation shall be bound\nup with the observance of the natural law of obedience to those from\nwhom we derive our life.  I say the prosperity of the nation, and so no\ndoubt secondly of the individual; but all through the Ten Commandments\nthe individual is regarded only as part of the nation.\n\nThe other translation of these words--'which is the first commandment\nwith promise'--is one to which the original Greek does not seem to give\nany preference, and which does not give a good sense, for the fifth\ncommandment has neither {230} more nor less of promise than the second,\nand in what we now call 'the second table' it stands alone as having a\npromise implied.\n\nHere again in dealing with children St. Paul passes from the duty of\nthe subject to that of the authority.  Fathers are exhorted not to\nirritate their children, as in the Epistle to the Colossians they are\nnot to provoke them, or, as the word may perhaps mean, overstimulate\nthem so as to lead to their losing heart[28].  A broken spirit and a\nsullen spirit are alike bad signs in youth.  But this does not mean\nthat they are not to be disciplined; discipline is God's purpose for us\nall through life, and in childhood and youth parents are the ministers\nof God to discipline their children and put them in mind to obey God.\n\n\nChildren, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.  Honour thy\nfather and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), that\nit may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.  And,\nye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the\nchastening and admonition of the Lord.\n\n\nWe may notice in this passage the implication of infant baptism.  The\nchildren are addressed 'in the Lord,' that is as already members of the\n{231} body of Christ.  The children of any one Christian parent are, in\n1 Cor. vii. 14, described as 'holy'--that is consecrated or dedicated\nby the circumstances of their birth and the opportunity which it\nsupplies for Christian education--and thus fit subjects for baptism.\nIn fact it is probable that Christianity took from the Jews the\npractice of infant baptism.  Within their own race indeed there was no\nneed of a ceremony of incorporation.  For the son of Jewish parents was\n_born_ a member of the chosen people.  But a proselyte was--certainly\nbefore our Lord's time--made a Jew with a _baptism_[29] which was\nregarded as his new birth, his naturalization into a new and higher\nrace.  And if the proselyte had children they were baptized with him as\n'little proselytes[30].'  With a new depth of meaning this practice of\ninfant baptism was taken over by the Christian church in the case of\nthose already dedicated to God by the spiritual opportunities of their\nbirth and education, so that the beginnings of growth might be\nsanctified, like our Lord's childhood, in the Spirit.\n\n{232}\n\nWe must also take to heart in our day the lesson of the fifth\ncommandment, as re-enforced by St. Paul, with its converse in the duty\nof parents.  Domestic obedience is somewhat at a discount, it is to be\nfeared, in this generation in most classes of society; and this is a\nvery grave peril.  Parents, wealthy as well as poor, are very commonly\ndisposed to make schoolmasters and schoolmistresses do the work of\ndiscipline for them, while they retain for themselves the privilege of\nspoiling their children.  There are, however, of course, very many\nexceptions.  There are multitudes of homes where discipline is\nexercised wisely and lovingly, and children find obedience always a\nduty and mostly a joy.  This is certainly the only divinely appointed\nmethod by which we are to be prepared for the obedience and\nself-discipline required of us when we grow to be what is falsely\ndescribed as 'our own masters.'  And St. Paul's twofold admonition to\nparents is full of wisdom: they are not to provoke their children so\nthat they become bad-tempered, and they are not to over-stimulate them,\nby competition or otherwise, so that they become disheartened.  But to\nnourish them by appropriate food, mental and spiritual as well as\nphysical, so that they may grow to the full {233} stature and strength\nwhich God intends for them.\n\n\nC.  MASTERS AND SLAVES.  VI. 5-9.\n\n[Sidenote: _Masters and slaves_]\n\nSt. Paul's method in dealing with slavery is well known.  The slave is\nin a position really, at bottom, inconsistent with human individuality\nand liberty, as Christianity insists upon it.  Thus, to go no further,\nthe male slave and his wife are liable (in all systems of slavery) to\nbe sold apart from one another.  This puts in its plainest form the\ninconsistency of slavery with Christianity.  The slave is a living\nrational tool of another man, and not his brother with fundamentally\nthe same spiritual right to 'save his life' or make the best of his\nfaculties.  Thus where a slave _can_ obtain liberty St. Paul exhorts\nhim to prefer it[31].  And when he is dealing with the Christian master\nPhilemon, whose runaway slave, Onesimus, has become Christian under St.\nPaul's influence, he exhorts him to receive him back, no longer as a\nslave, but as a brother beloved[32].  But Christianity enlisted in no\npremature crusade against slavery as an institution--premature, because\nChristianity was not yet in the position to fashion a civilization of\n{234} her own.  It left it to be undermined by the Christian spirit.\n\nThus St. Paul exhorts slaves to obey, and that in more forcible\nlanguage than he has applied even to children, 'with fear and\ntrembling'; that is with an intense anxiety to do their duty.  They are\nto perform their work as in God's sight, thoroughly--He being the\ninspector of it who can infallibly tell good work from bad--and 'from\nthe heart,' that is, putting their will and mind into it.  They are to\ndo it as to the Lord, knowing that no good work, however menial or\nuninteresting, is wasted, but shall be received back, in its product or\nlegitimate fruit, as 'its own reward' from Christ's hand.  In the\nEpistle to Timothy, this additional reason for diligent service is\ngiven, that if Christian slaves get a reputation for slackness they\nwill bring discredit upon the Christian name[33].  And in the same\npassage a touch is added which shows what, even in its possible\nperversions, the spirit of brotherhood really meant, 'They that have\nbelieving masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren;\nbut let them serve them the rather, because they that partake of the\nbenefit are believers and beloved.'\n\n{235}\n\nAnd the masters are exhorted to remember that true principle of human\nequality--that 'with God is no respect of persons,' that in God's sight\neach man counts for one, and no one counts for more than one; each\nhaving an equal claim and duty in the sight of the one Master under\nwhom all are servants.  Thus they are to deal with their slaves in the\nsame spirit of duty as their slaves should have toward them, and they\nare to treat them with the respect due to brother men 'forbearing\nthreatenings.'\n\n\nServants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your\nmasters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto\nChrist; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as servants\nof Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing\nservice, as unto the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that whatsoever\ngood thing each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the\nLord, whether _he be_ bond or free.  And, ye masters, do the same\nthings unto them, and forbear threatening: knowing that both their\nMaster and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with\nhim.\n\n\nChristianity has long abolished slavery so far as the legal status of\nthe slave is concerned.  But the principles of mastership and service\nare still to be learned in this brief section of St Paul's writing; and\nif we really believed that 'with {236} God is no respect of persons'\nthere would be neither scamping of work and defrauding of employers,\nnor on the other hand the 'sweating' of the employed and treating of\nmen and women as if they were tools for the profit of others, instead\nof spiritual beings, with each his own divine end to realize.\n\n\n\n[1] Is. liv. 5; Jer. iii. 14.\n\n[2] _Prophecies of Isaiah_, vol. ii, p. 188.\n\n[3] 1 Cor. vi. 17.\n\n[4] This, it is well known, was read in the Old Version.  It has\nvanished (in submission to the verdict of the best MSS.) from the R. V.\nBut there seems to me to be some force in Alford's plea for the\noriginality of the words, as they stand in 'Western' and later texts.\n\n[5] Acts xx. 28.\n\n[6] 'Washing.'  Marg. 'laver.'\n\n[7] John i. 29.\n\n[8] John xvii. 9; Tit. ii. 14.\n\n[9] Rom. x. 9; cp. Acts xxii. 16.\n\n[10] _In Joan, tract._ 80.  Cf. Irenaeus _c. haer._ v. 2, 3.\n\n[11] See St. Thom. Aq., _Summa_, Pars iii. Qu. lxx. art. 6 _ad_ 3.\n\n[12] 1 Pet. iii. 7.\n\n[13] It is noticeable that St. Paul does not (according to the Revised\nVersion which represents the original) exactly enjoin _obedience_ upon\nwives (as upon children and slaves) but _subjection_: cf. Col. iii. 18;\n1 Cor. xiv. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12; 1 Pet. iii. 1.  If however in the\nuse of the 'obey' in the vow of the wife our marriage service goes an\nalmost imperceptible stage beyond St. Paul, its general tone preserves\nSt. Paul's balance admirably.  The husband 'worships' the wife and\nendows her with all his worldly goods.  The only other ecclesiastical\nformula of ours in which the word worship is used of a purely human\nrelation, is the peer's oath of allegiance to the sovereign at the\ncoronation, 'I do become your liegeman of life and limb and of earthly\nworship: and faith and troth I will bear unto you to live and to die\nagainst all manner of folks.'\n\n[14] How many husbands are capable of 'teaching their wives at home'\nabout religion? see 1 Cor. xiv. 35.\n\n[15] See however below, p. 225.\n\n[16] 1 Tim. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.\n\n[17] 1 Tim. ii. 8, 9.\n\n[18] 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 4.\n\n[19] All this has been admirably stated by George Romanes, whom no one\ncould accuse of misogyny, in his essay on 'the mental differences\nbetween men and women.'  See Essays (Longmans, 1897), pp. 113 ff.  And\nthe statements of the text are supported by Mr. Havelock Ellis' _Man\nand Woman_ (Contemp. Science Series).  Mr. Ellis is sometimes less\ndecisive than Mr. Romanes.  But see capp. xiii, xiv.\n\n[20] Tennyson's _Princess_; cp. his _Memoir_ by Hallam Tennyson,\n(Macmillan, 1897), i. 249.\n\n[21] Prov. xxxi. 10 ff.\n\n[22] 1 Cor. xi. 5.\n\n[23] _Lambeth Conference_, 1897.  Report on Religious Communities, pp.\n57 ff.\n\n[24] See Paris, _Quatenus foeminae res publicas in Asia Minore Romanis\ninperantibus attigerint_ (Paris, 1891).\n\n[25] Ramsay, _Paul the Traveller_, p. 268.\n\n[26] Mark x. 19; cf. Matt xix. 18, 19; Luke xviii. 20.\n\n[27] Cited from Exod. xx. 12 according to the LXX, which assimilates\nthe passage to Deut. v. 16.\n\n[28] Col. iii. 21.  In 2 Cor. ix. 2, the only other place where the\nword is used by St. Paul or in the New Testament, it means to\n_stimulate by emulation_.\n\n[29] Accompanied with circumcision and sacrifice.\n\n[30] See Dr. Taylor, _The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_, pp. 55-58,\nand Sabatier, La _Didache_, pp. 84-88, both very suggestive passages.\nCf. Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus_, App. xii, and Schuerer,\n_Jewish People_, Div. ii. vol. ii. pp. 319 ff.\n\n[31] 1 Cor. vii. 21, 23.\n\n[32] Philem. 16.\n\n[33] 1 Tim. vi. 1.\n\n\n\n\n{237}\n\nDIVISION II.  Sec. 6.  CHAPTER VI. 10-20.\n\n_The personal spiritual struggle._\n\n[Sidenote: _The spiritual struggle_]\n\nThe ethics of Christianity are, as has appeared, social ethics, the\nethics of a society organized in mutual relationships: and Christianity\nis concerned with the whole life of man, body as well as soul, his\ncommerce and his politics as well as his religion.  But because this\nrequires to be made emphatic, does it follow that we are to neglect or\ndepreciate the inward, personal, spiritual struggle?  Are we to give a\nreduced, because we give a better balanced, importance to 'saving one's\nown soul,' that is preserving or recovering into its full power and\nsupremacy one's own spiritual personality?  Of course not: because\nsocial health depends on personal character.  The more a good man\nthrows himself into social, including ecclesiastical, duties the more\nhe feels the need of character in himself and others.  And the more\nserious a man is {238} about his character, the more deeply he feels\nthe attention and self-discipline that character needs.  Certainly the\nmost ascetic words of our Lord--those in which He speaks of the\nnecessity for cutting off or plucking out hand or eye if hand or eye\ncause us to stumble, and warns us that we must be strong at the\nspiritual centre of our being, before we can be free in exterior\naction--are likely to come home to no one with more force than to one\nwho would do his duty in Church or state.  Christ cannot redeem the\nworld without Himself passing through the temptation and the agony in\nthe garden.  And thus St. Paul, after he has been dwelling on the\nfraternal and corporate character of the Christian life, comes back at\nthe last to emphasize the personal spiritual struggle.  To be a good\nmember of the body, he says in effect, you must be in personal\ncharacter a strong man, strong enough in Christ's might to win the\nvictory in a fearful struggle.\n\nAgainst what is our spiritual struggle?  It is against the weakness and\nlawlessness of our own flesh.  'The spirit is willing, but the flesh is\nweak.'  'Our eye and hand and foot cause us to stumble.'  Or again it\nis the world which is too much for us.  'We seek honour one of another\n{239} and not the glory that cometh from the only God.'  Quite true.\nBut behind the manifest disorder of our nature and the insistence of\nworldly motives there are other less apparent forces; and these, in St.\nPaul's mind, so overshadow the more visible and tangible ones that, in\nthe Biblical manner of speech, he denies for the moment the reality of\nthe latter.  'We wrestle not against flesh and blood,' not against our\nown flesh or a visibly corrupt public, but against an unseen spiritual\nhost organized for evil.\n\nIt was noticed above that St. Paul has no doubt at all that moral evil\nhas its origin and spring in the dark background behind human\nnature--in the rebel wills of devils.  It has become customary to\nregard belief in devils or angels as fanciful and perhaps\nsuperstitious.  Now no doubt theological and popular fancy has intruded\nitself into the things it has not seen, and, instead of the studiously\nvague[1] language of St. Paul, has developed a sort of geography and\nethnology for spirits good and bad which is mythological and allied to\nsuperstition.  But it has acted in the same way, and shown the same\nresentment of the discipline of ignorance, in the case of even more\ncentral spiritual realities.  No {240} doubt again the belief in the\ndevil has sometimes become, in practical force, belief in a rival God.\nBut this sort of Manichaeism or dualism represents a very permanent\ntendency in the untrained religious instincts of men, which the Bible\nis occupied in restraining.  In the Bible certainly Satan and his hosts\nare rebel angels and not rival Gods.  Once more undoubtedly demonology\nhas been a source of much misery and many degrading practices.  But\ndemonology represents a natural religious instinct.  It is older than\nthe Bible.  And what our religion has done, where it has been true to\nitself, is to purge away the noxious and non-moral superstitions.  St.\nPaul is representative of true Christianity in his stern refusal to use\nthe services of contemporary soothsaying and magic and sorcery[2].  One\nhas only to compare the exorcisms of our Lord with contemporary Jewish\nexorcism to note the moral difference.  And every truth has its\nexaggeration and its abuse.  The question still remains; are there no\nspiritual beings but men?  Is there no moral evil, but in the human\nheart?  Our Lord gives the most emphatic negative answer.  His teaching\nabout evil (and good) spirits is unmistakable and {241} constant.  If\nHe is an absolutely trustworthy teacher in the spiritual concerns of\nlife, then temptation from evil spirits is a reality, and a reality to\nbe held constantly in view.  And our Lord's authority is confirmed by\nour own experiences.  Sometimes experience irresistibly suggests to us\nthe presence of unseen bad companions who can make vivid suggestions to\nour minds.  Or we are impressed like St. Paul with the delusive, lying\ncharacter of evil, which makes the belief in a malevolent will almost\ninevitable.  Or the continuity in evil influences, social or personal,\nseems to disclose to us an organized plan or 'method[3]' a kingdom of\nevil.\n\nIt is then in view of unseen but personal spiritual adversaries\norganized against us as armies, under leaders who have at their control\nwide-reaching social forces of evil, and who intrude themselves into\nthe highest spiritual regions 'the heavenly places' to which in their\nown nature they belong, that St. Paul would have us equip ourselves for\nfighting in 'the armour of light[4].'\n\nIf there is a spiritual battle, armour defensive and offensive becomes\na natural metaphor which {242} St. Paul frequently uses[5].  But in his\nimprisonment he must have become specially habituated to the armour of\nRoman soldiers, and here, as it were, he makes a spiritual meditation\non the pieces of the 'panoply' which were continually under his\nobservation.\n\nWe are, then, to 'take up' or 'put on' the panoply or whole armour of\nGod.  This means more than the armour which God supplies.  It is\nprobably like 'the righteousness of God,' something which is not only a\ngift of God, but a gift of His own self.  Our righteousness is Christ,\nand He is our armour.  Christ, the 'stronger man,' who overthrew 'the\nstrong man armed' in His own person[6], and 'took away from him his\npanoply in which he trusted,' is to be our defence.  And by no external\nprotection; we are to clothe ourselves in His nature, to put Him on as\nour armour.  His is the strength in which we are, like Him, to come\ntriumphant through the hour of darkness.\n\nNow the parts of the armour, the elements of Christ's unconquerable\nmoral strength, what are they?\n\n{243}\n\nThe belt which keeps all else in its place is for the Christian,\ntruth--that is, singleness of eye or perfect sincerity--the pure and\nsimple desire of the light.  'Unless the vessel be clean (or sincere)'\nsaid the old Roman proverb, 'whatever you put into it turns sour.'  A\nlack of sincerity at the heart of the spiritual life will destroy it\nall.  Then the breastplate which covers vital organs is, for the\nChristian, righteousness--the specific righteousness of Christ, St.\nPaul seems to imply[7], in which in its indivisible unity he is to\nenwrap himself.  And, as the feet of the soldier must be well shod not\nonly for protection but also to facilitate free movement on all sorts\nof ground, the Christian too is to be so possessed with the good\ntidings of peace that he is 'prepared' to move and act under all\ncircumstances--all hesitations, and delays, and uncertainties which\nhinder movement gone--his feet shod with the preparedness which belongs\nto those who have peace at the heart.  ('How beautiful upon the\nmountains are the feet of him that bringeth glad tidings, that\npublisheth peace.')  In these three fundamental\ndispositions--single-mindedness, whole-hearted {244} following of\nChrist, readiness such as belongs to a believer in the good\ntidings--lies the Christian's strength.  But the armour is not yet\ncomplete.  The attacks of the enemy upon the thoughts will be frequent\nand fiery.  A constant and rapid action of the will will be necessary\nto protect ourselves from evil suggestions lest they obtain a\nlodgement.  And the method of self-protection is to look continually\nand deliberately out of ourselves up to Christ--to appeal to Him, to\ninvoke His name, to draw upon His strength by acts of our will.  Thus\nfaith, continually at every fresh assault looking instinctively to\nChrist and drawing upon His help, is to be our shield, off which the\nenemy's darts will glance harmless, their hurtful fire quenched.  And\nin thus defending ourselves we must have continually in mind that God\nhas delivered man by a great redemption[8].  It is the sense of this\ngreat salvation, the conviction of each Christian that he is among\nthose who have been saved and are tasting this salvation, which is to\ncover his head from attack like a helmet[9].  And God's {245}\nword--God's specific and particular utterances, through inspired\nprophets and psalmists--is to equip his mouth with a sword of power; as\nin His temptation and on the cross, Christ 'put off from Himself the\nprincipalities and powers, and made a show of them, triumphing over\nthem openly' by the words of Holy Scripture; as Bunyan's Christian,\nwhen 'Apollyon was fetching him his last blow, nimbly stretched out his\nhand and caught' for his 'sword' the word of Micah, 'when I fall I\nshall arise.'  This is one fruit of constant meditation on the words of\nHoly Scripture, that they recur to our minds when we most need them.\nAnd then St. Paul passes from metaphor to simple speech, and for the\nlast weapon bids the Christians use 'always' that most powerful of all\nspiritual weapons for themselves and others, 'prayer and supplication'\nof all kinds and 'in all seasons.'  But it is not to be ignorant and\nblind prayer; it is to be prayer 'in the spirit,' 'who helpeth our\ninfirmities, for we know not of ourselves how to pray as we ought.'\n'The things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God'[10]; and it is\nto be the sort of prayer about which trouble is taken, and which is\npersevering; and it is to be {246} prayer for others as well as for\nthemselves, 'for all the saints.'  And St. Paul uses the pastor's\nprivilege, and asks for himself the support of his converts' prayers,\nthat he may have both power of speech and courage to proclaim the good\ntidings of the divine secret disclosed, for which he is already\nsuffering as a prisoner.\n\n\nFinally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might.  Put\non the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the\nwiles of the devil.  For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood,\nbut against the principalities, against the powers, against the\nworld-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual _hosts_ of\nwickedness in the heavenly _places_.  Wherefore take up the whole\narmour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and,\nhaving done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having girded your loins\nwith truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and\nhaving shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;\nwithal taking up the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to\nquench all the fiery darts of the evil one.  And take the helmet of\nsalvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: with\nall prayer and supplication praying at all seasons in the Spirit, and\nwatching thereunto in all perseverance and supplication for all the\nsaints, and on my behalf, that utterance may be given unto me in\nopening my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the\ngospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak\nboldly, as I ought to speak.\n\n\n{247}\n\nSt. Paul does not only exhort Christians to pray, but he gives them\nabundant examples.  In this epistle there are two specimens[11] of\nprayer for the spiritual progress of his converts, mingled with\nthanksgivings and praise.  We habitually pray for others that they may\nbe delivered from temporal evils, or that they may be converted from\nflagrant sin or unbelief.  But surely we very seldom pray rich prayers,\nlike those of St. Paul's, for others' progress in spiritual\napprehension.\n\n\n\n[1] Col. i. 16.\n\n[2] Acts xiii. 6-12; xvi. 16-18; xix. 13-20.\n\n[3] This is akin to St. Paul's word in the Greek, iv. 14; vi. 11.\n\n[4] Rom. xiii. 12.\n\n[5] Rom. vi. 13; xiii. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 7; x. 4; 1 Thess. v. 8.  Cf. Isa.\nxi. 4, 5, and Wisd. v. 19.\n\n[6] Luke xi. 21, 22.\n\n[7] By the use of the articles.  Contrast Is. lix. 17 which he is\nquoting.\n\n[8] Isa. lix. 17.\n\n[9] 'Salvation' is sometimes viewed as already accomplished, i.e. in\nthe victory of Christ: sometimes as still to be realized at 'the\nredemption of our bodies': so in 1 Thess. v. 8 the helmet is 'the hope\nof salvation' yet to be attained.\n\n[10] Rom. viii. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 11.\n\n[11] Eph. i. 15 ff.; iii. 14 ff.\n\n\n\n\n{248}\n\nCONCLUSION.  CHAPTER VI.  21-24.\n\n[Sidenote: _Conclusion_]\n\n\nBut that ye also may know my affairs, how I do, Tychicus, the beloved\nbrother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all\nthings: whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may\nknow our state, and that he may comfort your hearts.  Peace be to the\nbrethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus\nChrist.  Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in\nuncorruptness.\n\n\nTychicus was a native of Asia Minor[1], a companion and delegate of St.\nPaul, like Timothy and others[2].  He was entrusted with the task\npresumably of conveying this letter to the churches of Asia Minor, and\ncertainly of informing them as to the apostle's state in his Roman\nimprisonment--information which could not fail to comfort and encourage\nthem.\n\nSt. Paul brings this wonderful letter to a conclusion with a brief\nbenediction to the brethren--an invocation upon them of divine peace,\nand love with faith--an invocation of divine favour upon all that 'love\nour Lord Jesus Christ in {249} uncorruptness.'  Corruption is the fruit\nof sin, the condition of the 'old man[3].'  Incorruption is the state\nof the risen Christ, and in Him the members of His body are to be\npreserved, and at last raised 'incorruptible[4]' in body.  But there is\na prior 'incorruptibleness' of spirit in which all Christians are to\nlive from the first[5], a freedom from all such doublemindedness or\nuncleanness as can corrupt the central life of the man.  And to love\nChrist with this incorruptibility is the condition of the permanent\nenjoyment of all that His good favour would bestow upon us.\n\n\n\n[1] Acts xx. 4.\n\n[2] 2 Tim. iv. 12.\n\n[3] Eph. iv. 22\n\n[4] Cor. xv. 52.\n\n[5] 1 Pet. iii. 4.\n\n\n\n\n{251}\n\nAPPENDED NOTES.\n\n\nNOTE A.  See p. 26.\n\nTHE ROMAN EMPIRE RECOGNIZED BY CHRISTIAN\n  WRITERS AS A DIVINE PREPARATION FOR\n  THE SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL.\n\n(1) The Spanish poet Prudentius (_c._ A.D. 400) fully appreciates the\ninfluence of the Roman Empire in welding together the world into a\nunity of government, laws, language, customs, and religious rites, to\nprepare the way for the universal Church.  The stanzas are remarkable\nand worth quoting.  They are put as a prayer into the mouth of the\nRoman deacon Laurence during his martyrdom.  He recognizes what the\nRoman Empire has done, and prays that Rome may follow the example of\nthe rest of the world in becoming Christian.\n\n  O Christe, numen unicum          ut discrepantum gentium\n  O splendor, O virtus Patris,     mores et observantiam,\n  O factor orbis et poli,          linguas et ingenia et sacra,\n  atque auctor horum moenium!      unis domares legibus.\n\n  Qui sceptra Romae in vertice     En omne sub regnum Remi\n  rerum locasti, sanciens          mortale concessit genus:\n  mundum quirinali togae           idem loquuntur dissoni\n  servire et armis cedere:         ritus, id ipsum sentiunt.\n\n{252}\n\n  Hoc destinatum, quo magis        Confoederantur omnia\n  ius Christiani nominis           hinc inde membra in symbolum:\n  quodcunque terrarum iacet        mansuescit orbis subditus:\n  uno illigaret vinculo.           mansuescat et summum caput.\n\n  Da, Christe, Romanis tuis            _Peristephanon_, ii. 413 ff.\n  sit Christiana ut civitas:\n  per quam dedisti ut caeteris\n  mens una sacrorum foret.\n\n\n(2) The Pope, Leo the Great (_c._ A.D. 450), speaks thus (_Serm._\nlxxxii. 2): 'That the result of this unspeakable grace (the\nIncarnation) might be spread abroad throughout the world, God's\nprovidence made ready the Roman Empire, whose growth has reached so far\nthat the whole multitude of nations have been brought into\nneighbourhood and connexion.  For it particularly suited the divinely\nplanned work that many kingdoms should be leagued together in one\nempire, so that the universal preaching might make its way quickly\nthrough nations already united under the government of one state.  And\nyet that state, in ignorance of the author of its aggrandisement,\nthough it ruled almost all races, was enthralled by the errors of them\nall; and seemed to itself to have received a great religion, because it\nhad rejected no falsehood.  And for this very reason its emancipation\nthrough Christ was the more wondrous that it had been so fast bound by\nSatan.'  Leo further recognizes that the Popes are entering into the\nposition of the Caesars (c. 1), that Rome, 'made the head of the world\nby being the holy see of blessed Peter, should rule more widely by\nmeans of the divine religion than of earthly sovereignty.'  But his\nstatement of the relation of Peter to Paul in the evangelization of the\nworld (c. 5) is remarkably unhistorical.\n\n\n\n\n{253}\n\nNOTE B.  See p. 29.\n\nTHE (SO-CALLED) 'LETTERS OF HERACLEITUS.'\n\nNine letters under the name of the great philosopher of Ephesus remain\nto us.  In one of them (iv) Heracleitus is represented as saying to\nsome Ephesian adversaries, 'If you had been able to live again by a new\nbirth 500 years hence, you would have discovered Heracleitus yet alive\n[i.e. in the memory of men] but not so much as a trace of your name.'\nThis probably indicates that the author is writing 500 years after\nHeracleitus' supposed age.  His age was differently estimated.  But\n'500 years after Heracleitus' would mean, according to all reckonings,\nabout the first half of the first century A.D.  All the other\nindications of age in the letters agree with this.  (See Jacob Bernays'\n_Heraclitischen Briefe_, Berlin, 1869, p. 112.)  They were written\npresumably at Ephesus, and all or most of them by a Stoic philosopher.\nI do not think that it is necessary to assume traces of Jewish\ninfluence in these letters, any more than in the writings of Seneca.\nAnd the bulk of the letters is so thoroughly Stoic and contrary to\nJewish feeling, that a Jew is hardly likely to have interpolated them.\nThey illustrate therefore the current philosophic ideas which were at\nwork in the world in which St. Paul lived and taught, when he was\noutside Judaea.  That St. Paul was familiar with these ideas, however\nhis familiarity may have been gained, is shown beyond possibility of\nmistake by his speeches--supposing them substantially genuine--at\nLystra and Athens.\n\nThe following passages in these letters are interesting:\n\n(1) (From Heracleitus' defence of himself against {254} a charge of\nimpiety in letter iv) 'Where is God?  Is he shut up in the temples?\nYou forsooth are pious who set up the God in a dark place.  A man takes\nit for an insult if he is said to be \"made of stone\": and is God truly\ndescribed as \"born of the rocks\"?  Ignorant men, do ye not know that\nGod is not fashioned with hands, nor can you make him a sufficient\npedestal, nor shut him into one enclosure, but the whole world is his\ntemple, decorated with animals and planets and stars?  I inscribed my\naltar \"to Heracles the Ephesian\" [Greek: ERAKLEI TOI EPHESIOI] making\nthe God your citizen, not--he continues--to myself \"Heracleitus an\nEphesian\" [the same letters differently divided], as I am accused of\ndoing by you in your ignorance.  Yet Heracles was a man deified by his\ngoodness and noble deeds; and were his virtues and labours greater than\nmine?  I have conquered money and ambition: I have mastered fear and\nflattery,' &c.  Then after a passage about the certainty of his own\nimmortal renown, he returns to ridicule idolatry.  'If an altar of a\ngod be not set up, is there no god? or if an altar be set up to what is\nnot a god, is it a god--so that stones become the evidences (witnesses)\nof Gods?  Nay it is his works which shall bear witness to God, as the\nsun, the day and night, the seasons, the whole fruitful earth, and the\ncircle of the moon, his work and witness in the heavens.'  The whole of\nthis letter (iv), which can be paralleled in all its ideas from Stoic\nand Platonic sources, may compare and contrast with Acts xiv. 15-18;\nxvii. 22-29.\n\n(2) Letter v is written by Heracleitus in sickness.  He gives a theory\nof disease as an excess of some element in the body; and describes his\nsoul as a divine thing reproducing in his body the healing activity of\nGod in the world as a whole,--'imitating God' by knowledge of the\nmethod of nature.  Even if his body prove unmanageable and succumb to\nfate, yet his soul will rise {255} to heaven and 'I shall have my\ncitizenship (Greek: politeusouai) not among men but among Gods.'\n'Perhaps my soul is giving prophetic intimation of its release even now\nfrom its prison house' so short lived and worthless.  Letter vi is a\ncontinuation of v, containing a denunciation of contemporary medicine\non the ground of its lack of science, and a further explanation of the\nStoic doctrine of the immanence of God in all nature--forming,\nordering, dissolving, transforming, healing everywhere.  'Him will I\nimitate in myself and dismiss all others.'  We should compare and (even\nmore) contrast St. Paul's assertions of independence of bodily\ncircumstances; his belief in the higher sense of 'nature' (Rom. ii.\n14), and such phrases as Phil. ii. 20, 'our citizenship is in heaven,'\nEph. v. 1, 'Be ye imitators of God.'\n\n(3) Letter vii is addressed to Hermodorus in exile.  Heracleitus is to\nbe exiled also 'for misanthropy and refusal to smile' by a law directed\nagainst him alone.  After an interesting condemnation of _privilegia_,\nthe letter explains his misanthropy.  He does not hate men, but their\nvices.  The law should run 'If any man hates vice let him leave the\ncity.'  Then he will go willingly.  In fact he is already an exile\nwhile in the city, for he cannot share its vices.  Then he describes\nEphesian life in terms of fierce contempt, their lusts natural and\nunnatural, their frauds, their wars of words, their legal\ncontentiousness, their faithlessness and perjuries, their robberies of\ntemples.  He denounces their vices in connexion with the worship of\nCybele (beating the kettle-drum) and Dionysus (the eating of live\nflesh), and with religious vigils and banquets, and alludes to details\nof sensuality associated with these meetings.  He condemns the\nsubmission of great principles to the verdicts of the crowd at their\ntheatres, and passes to a further vivid onslaught on their quarrels and\nmurders (they are no longer men {256} but beasts), on their use of\nmusic to excite their bloodthirsty passions, and on war altogether as\ncontrary to 'the law of nature,' and involving the pursuit of all sorts\nof vice.  All this impeachment may be compared with St. Paul, who\nspeaks however by comparison with marked reserve, in Rom. i. 24-31,\nEph. iv. 17-19, and elsewhere.\n\n(4) The eighth letter is again written to Hermodorus now on his way to\nItaly to assist the Decemvirs with the Ten Tables.  It contains a\nsomewhat remarkable 'judgement on wealthy Ephesus' and statement of the\njudicial function of wealth.  'God does not punish by taking wealth\naway, but rather gives it to the wicked, that through having\nopportunity to sin they may be convicted, and by the very abundance of\ntheir resources may exhibit their corruption on a wider stage.'  Cf. 1\nTim. vi. 9.\n\n(5) The banishment of Hermodorus had been on account of a proposed law\nto grant equal citizenship to freed men, and the right of public office\nto their children.  This instance of Ephesian intolerance gives\noccasion for an enunciation of the Stoic doctrine that the only real\nfreedom is moral freedom, and moral freedom constitutes a man a citizen\nof the world.  'The good Ephesian is a citizen of the world.  For this\nis the common home of all, and its law is no written document but God\n(Greek: ou gramma alla theos), and he who transgresses his duty shall\nbe impious; or rather he will not dare to transgress, for he will not\nescape justice.'  'Let the Ephesians cease to be the sort of men they\nare, and they will love all men in an equality of virtue.'  'Virtue,\nnot the chance of birth, makes men equal.'  'Only vice enslaves, only\nvirtue liberates.'  For men to enslave their fellow men is to fall\nbelow the beasts; so also to mutilate them as the Ephesians do their\nMegabyzi--the eunuch-priests of the wooden image of Artemis.  There\nmust be inequality of function in the world, but not refusal of\nfellowship, as the {257} higher parts of nature do not despise the\nlower, or the soul think scorn to dwell with the body, or the head\ndespise the entrails, or God refuse to give the gifts of nature, such\nas the light of the sun, to all equally.  Here again we have what is\nboth like and unlike St. Paul's doctrine of true human liberty and\n'fellowship in the body.'\n\nOn the whole I think these letters are worth more notice than they have\nreceived, both in themselves and as a good example of the sort of\nreligious and moral doctrine current in the better heathen circles of\nthe Asiatic cities, while St. Paul was teaching.  It presents many\npoints of connexion with St. Paul's teaching, and co-operated with the\ninfluence of the Jewish synagogue to prepare men's minds for it.  But\nperhaps what chiefly strikes us is the contrast which the fierce and\narrogant contempt of the Stoic presents to the loving hopefulness of\nthe Christian messenger of the gospel.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE C.  See p. 74.\n\nTHE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF WORKS IN _THE APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH_.\n\nMr. R. H. Charles gives us the following statement[1]:--\n\n'The Talmudic doctrine of works may be shortly summarized as follows:\nEvery good work--whether the fulfilment of a command or an act of\nmercy--established a certain degree of merit with God, while every evil\nwork entailed a corresponding demerit.  A man's position with God\ndepended on the relation existing between his merits and demerits, and\nhis salvation on the preponderance of the former over the latter.  The\nrelation between his {258} merits and demerits was determined daily by\nthe weighing of his deeds.  But as the results of such judgements were\nnecessarily unknown, there could not fail to be much uneasiness; and,\nto allay this, the doctrine of the vicarious righteousness of the\npatriarchs and saints of Israel was developed not later than the\nbeginning of the Christian era (cf. Matt. iii. 9).  A man could thereby\nsummon to his aid the merits of the fathers, and so counterbalance his\ndemerits.\n\n'It is obvious that such a system does not admit of forgiveness in any\nspiritual sense of the term.  It can only mean in such a connexion a\nremission of penalty to the offender, on the ground that compensation\nis furnished, either through his own merit or through that of the\nrighteous fathers.  Thus, as Weber vigorously puts it: \"Vergebung ohne\nBezahlung gibt es nicht.\"  Thus, according to popular Pharisaism, _God\nnever remitted a debt until He was paid in full, and so long as it was\npaid it mattered not by whom_.\n\n'It will be observed that with the Pharisees forgiveness was _an\nexternal thing_; it was concerned not with the man himself but with his\nworks--with these indeed as affecting him, but yet as existing\nindependently without him.  This was not the view taken by the best\nthought in the Old Testament.  There forgiveness dealt first and\nchiefly with the direct relation between man's spirit and God; it was\nessentially a restoration of man to communion with God.  When,\ntherefore, Christianity had to deal with these problems, it could not\naccept the Pharisaic solutions, but had in some measure to return to\nthe Old Testament to authenticate and develope the highest therein\ntaught, and in the person and life of Christ to give it a world-wide\npower and comprehensiveness.'\n\nThe doctrine called Talmudic in the above extract receives remarkable\nillustration in a Jewish work, _The {259} Apocalypse of Baruch_, which\ndates from the same period as the writings of the New Testament (A.D.\n50-100; or if the work be regarded as composite, we should say that its\ncomponent elements are of that date), and represents to us in a very\nvivid and touching form the hopes and beliefs of a pious orthodox Jew.\nThus--\n\n1.  _The doctrine of the merit of good works_, ii. 2 [words spoken to\nJeremiah by God], 'Your works are to this city as a firm pillar.'  xiv.\n5: 'What have they profited who confessed before Thee, and have not\nwalked in vanity as the rest of the nations ... but always feared Thee,\nand have not left Thy ways?  And, lo, they have been carried off, nor\non their account hast Thou had mercy on Zion.  And if others did evil,\nit was due to Zion that on account of the works of those who wrought\ngood works she should be forgiven, and should not be overwhelmed on\naccount of the works of those who wrought unrighteousness.'  lxiii. 3:\n'Hezekiah trusted in his works, and had hope in his righteousness, and\nspake with the Mighty One ... and the Mighty One heard him.'  lxxxv. 1:\n'In the generations of old those our fathers had helpers, righteous men\nand holy prophets ... and they helped us when we sinned, and they\nprayed for us to Him who made us, because they trusted in their works,\nand the Mighty One heard their prayer and was gracious unto us.'  li.\n7: 'But those who have been saved by their works, and to whom the law\nhas been now a hope, and understanding an expectation, and wisdom a\nconfidence, to them wonders will appear in their time.'\n\nIt is very noticeable in the above quotations that it is the works of\nthe righteous rather than their persons (as in Genesis xviii. 23-33)\nthat are put forward as the grounds of confidence with God.  The claim\nof righteousness in the second quotation (xiv. 5) may be paralleled in\nthe somewhat earlier work called _The Assumption {260} of Moses_[2]:\n'Observe and know that neither did our fathers nor their forefathers\ntempt God so as to transgress His commandments.'\n\n2.  _The doctrine of the treasury of merits_.  The good works of the\nrighteous are laid up as in a treasury to avail for themselves and for\nothers.  Thus (xiv. 12): 'The righteous justly hope for the end, and\nwithout fear depart from this habitation, because they have with Thee a\nstore of works preserved in treasuries.'  xxiv. 1: 'Behold the days\ncome when the books will be opened in which are written the sins of all\nthose that have sinned, and again also the treasuries in which the\nrighteousness of all those who have been righteous in creation is\ngathered.'\n\nThe connexion of the mediaeval doctrine of the treasury of merits with\nthe similar Jewish doctrine needs to be traced out.\n\n3.  _Righteousness identified with the keeping of the law_.  For the\nPharisaic Jew righteousness meant simply the keeping of the law.  Thus\nxv. 5: 'Man would not have rightly understood My judgement if he had\nnot accepted the law.'  Again, lxvii. 6: 'So far as Zion is delivered\nup and Jerusalem laid waste ... the vapour of the smoke of the incense\nof righteousness which is by the law is extinguished in Zion.'  Thus\nthe merits of Abraham are attributed to his having kept the law before\nit was written.  lvii. 2: 'At that time the unwritten law was named\namong them, and the works of the commandments were then fulfilled.'\n\nOf course it must be said that 'the Law' may mean the ceremonial law,\nas in the lower form of Jewish thought, or special stress may be laid\non its moral precepts, as is the case in Baruch, and in the higher\nJewish teaching generally.\n\n{261}\n\n4.  _The Gentiles are therefore incapable of righteousness_.  lxii. 7:\n'But regarding the Gentiles it were tedious to tell how they always\nwrought impiety and wickedness, and never wrought righteousness.'  Thus\nthe best hope of the Gentiles is that in the Messianic kingdom they\nshould become servants to Israel.  This will be their lot if they have\nnever vexed the holy people; see lxxii. 2-6.\n\n5.  _The world created on account of Israel_, xiv. 18: 'Thou didst say\nthat Thou wouldst make for Thy world man as the administrator of Thy\nworks, that it might be known that he was by no means made on account\nof the world but the world on account of him.  [But \"man\" is at once\ninterpreted as the Jewish race.]  And now I see that as for the world\nwhich was made on account of us, lo! it abides, but we on account of\nwhom it was made depart' [i.e. into captivity], xv. 7: 'As regards what\nthou didst say touching the righteous, that on account of them has this\nworld come into being, nay more, even that world which is to come is on\ntheir account.'  xxi. 23: 'Reprove therefore the angel of death ... and\nlet the treasuries of souls restore them that are enclosed in them, for\nthere have been many years like those that are desolate, from the days\nof Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of all those who are like them, who\nsleep in the earth, on whose account Thou didst say that Thou hadst\ncreated the world.'  (This idea of the treasury of the souls of the\nrighteous recurs in xxx. 2.)  In _The Assumption of Moses_ (i. 12) it\nis said, 'God hath created the world on behalf of His people.  But He\nwas not pleased to manifest this purpose of creation from the\nfoundation of the world, in order that the Gentiles might thereby be\nconvicted [i.e. of ignorance], yea to their own humiliation might by\ntheir arguments convict one another.'\n\nThe above teaching shows us exactly what it was to which St. Paul\nopposed his doctrine of Justification by {262} Faith.  We see it here\non its own ground.  Its close association with 'boasting' is apparent\neven in its better form; and its view of election contrasts, by its\nselfish narrowness, with the view of election put forward by St. Paul,\nviz. that God's election of a chosen people or society, together with\nHis apparent reprobation of others left outside, both alike subserve a\npurpose of infinite width, the ultimate divine purpose to 'have mercy\nupon all.'  See Romans ix-xi, especially xi. 32, and cf. Eph. i. 9-10:\n'the secret of His will with a view to the dispensation of the fulness\nof the times, to bring together all things in the Christ, things in\nheaven and things in earth.'\n\nThe marked contrast between the doctrine of Baruch and the doctrine of\nSt. Paul must of course be admitted in general; but it has been asked\nwhether the doctrine of the Atonement is not a fragment of the\nabandoned Jewish doctrine of merit, borrowed inconsistently by St.\nPaul, or inconsistently tolerated by him.  To this the reply is surely\nin the negative.  The Jews undoubtedly held that Enoch, Moses,\nJeremiah, and others were, on account of their righteousness, the\naccepted mediators with God on behalf of the chosen people, and\npropitiators of His wrath (see especially _Assumption of Moses_, xi,\nand passages from _Baruch_ cited above).  But the doctrine of the\nAtonement, when it is examined, proves to have one feature which puts\nit into marked opposition with the Judaic doctrine of human merit.\n\nAccording to the Christian doctrine of the Atonement, Christ is purely\nand simply God's gift to man.  He is the Son of God, given to man by\nthe Father, in order that, taking our nature upon Him, living the\nperfect human life, and dying the death of perfect obedience, He might\nsatisfy the divine requirement, which we could not satisfy, and procure\nfor us what we could not procure for ourselves, no, not the best of us.\nTherefore this doctrine {263} puts all men, the best and worst alike,\nin the common attitude of simply receiving from God, as an unmerited\nboon, the gift of forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ.  It is in\nfact the strongest possible negation of the Jewish idea of human merit,\npersonal or vicarious.\n\nIn other respects the doctrine of _The Apocalypse of Baruch_ affords at\nonce interesting contrasts and parallels to St. Paul's doctrine.  Thus--\n\n(_a_) In Baruch as in St. Paul, we have a combination of the doctrine\nof divine predestination with the insistence on human free will and\nresponsibility.  lxix. 4: 'Of the good works of the righteous which\nshould be accomplished before Him, He foresaw six kinds' should be\ncompared with Eph. ii. 10: 'Good works which God prepared beforehand\nthat we should walk in them.'\n\n(_b_) The eschatology of the New Testament, including St. Paul's, is of\ncourse especially Jewish.  It does not however concern us much in the\nEpistle to the Ephesians; but we notice that in _The Apocalypse of\nBaruch_ the idea of 'the consummation of the times' (cf. Eph. i. 10,\n'the fulness of the times') appears and reappears constantly.  See\nxiii. 3; xxi. 8, 17; xxx. 3; xlii. 6; liv. 21; lvi. 2; lix. 4; lxix. 4,\n5; cf. _The Assumption of Moses_, i. 18: 'The consummation of the end\nof the days.'\n\n(_c_) The connexion of St. Paul's doctrine with the Jewish doctrine is\nalso illustrated in _The Apocalypse of Baruch_ on the following points.\n_That the Gentiles had the opportunity of the knowledge of God through\nHis works in nature, but refused it_.  See _Baruch_, liv. 18, and cf.\nRomans, i. 20: _The pre-existence of the Messiah_.  This is suggested\nbut not very clearly stated in xxx. 1, cf. Charles's note and _The\nAssumption of Moses_, i. 14, where the pre-existence of Moses seems to\nbe asserted.  Again, _the Fall of Adam and its effect in introducing\ndeath_ (_or premature death_) _into the world_.  See xxiii. 4; xlviii.\n42; liv. 15; lvi. 6, and {264} Charles's notes.  Once more The\nResurrection of the Body.  See _Baruch_, l; li.  On all these points we\nsee what was the material in existing Jewish thought or, in other\nwords, what were the existing developements of Old Testament belief,\nwhich the Christian inspiration had to work upon.  The effect of the\nspecifically Christian inspiration is chiefly seen (1) in selection\namong existing beliefs--taking some and utterly rejecting others; (2)\nin giving a definite and fixed form to current Messianic and other\nideas which were continually shifting and incoherent; and (3) in\nspiritualizing and moralizing what it appropriated.  Of course it is in\nthe Revelation or Apocalypse of St. John that we have the most signal\ninstance of the New Testament use of contemporary Jewish material.  But\nsuch material holds a very large place in the whole of the New\nTestament, and there is no more important assistance to the study of\nthe New Testament than is afforded by contemporary Jewish literature,\nespecially that of an Apocalyptic character.\n\n\n\n[1] _The Apoc. of Baruch_ (A. and C. Black, 1896), p. lxxxii.  The\nstatement is compiled from Weber, _Lehre des Talmuds_.\n\n[2] Edited also by R. H. Charles (A. and C. Black, 1897), p. 37.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE D.  See p. 120.\n\nTHE BROTHERHOOD OF ST. ANDREW\n\nAfter the above passage was written, as to the need amongst us of a\ndeeper idea of the obligations of church membership, it fell to my lot\nto go to the United States, to make acquaintance with the work of the\nBrotherhood of St. Andrew in that country, and to assist at its general\nconvention in Buffalo.  It seemed to me that nothing could be better\ncalculated to revive the true spirit of laymanship than that society,\n'formed in recognition of {265} the fact that every Christian man is\npledged to devote his life to the spread of the kingdom of Christ on\nearth.'\n\nIt was started among a small band of young men, of the number of the\napostles, nearly fifteen years ago, in St. James's parish, Chicago, and\nhas spread till to-day it numbers more than 1,200 parochial chapters in\nthe United States alone, and has taken firm root in Canada and other\nparts of the world.  It has a double rule of Prayer and of Service.\nThe point of the service required is that it should have the character\nespecially of witness among a man's equals.  So much 'church work' is\ndirected towards raising those who are in some ways our inferiors, that\nwe forget that the real test of a man is the witness he bears for\nChrist among his equals.  There is many a man who, especially in his\nyouth, fails to confess Christ in his own society, and then, if I may\nso express it, sneaks round the corner to do something to raise the\ndegraded or takes orders and preaches the gospel.  Nobody can possibly\ndisparage these efforts of love, but a certain character of cowardice\ncontinues to attach to them, if they are not based on a frank witness\nfor Christ in a man's own walk of life, where it is hardest.  It is\nthis witness which the Brotherhood requires.\n\nThe particular rule is 'to make an earnest effort each week to bring\nsome one young man within hearing of the Gospel of Christ as set forth\nin the services of the Church and in men's Bible classes.'  This rule\nis no doubt open to criticism.  But it is interpreted in the spirit\nrather than in the letter, and for its definite requirement it is\nsuccessfully pleaded that it keeps the members from vagueness and\nslackness.\n\nCertainly the result appears to be excellent.  The brethren are\npervaded by a spirit of frank religious profession and devotion.  There\nappears to be a general {266} tone among them of reality and good\nsense.  Their missionary zeal does not degenerate into an intrusive\nprying into other men's souls.\n\nThe Brotherhood was developed in the atmosphere of the United States,\nand it remains a question whether it will flourish in England.  The\nmore sharply defined distinctions of classes among us; our exaggerated\nparochialism; the shyness and reserve in religious matters which\ncharacterizes many really religious Englishmen and degenerates into a\nsort of 'hypocrisy reversed,' or pretence of being less religious than\none is--these things will constitute grave obstacles.  But the need is\nat least as crying among us, as on the other side of the Atlantic, to\nemphasize among professing Christians and churchmen the duty of\nwitness.  At least we may trust the Brotherhood will be given a good\ntrial.  But if it is to have a fair chance among us, the greatest care\nmust be taken that it should develope as a properly lay movement; and\nwhile it receives all encouragement from the clergy, should not be\ntaken up by them to be turned into a guild of 'church workers,' useful\nfor purposes of parochial organization.\n\nOne of the most striking facts about the Brotherhood in the States is\nthat, while the church spirit is unmistakable--as no one who was\npresent at the corporate Communion of 1,300 delegates in October of\nthis year at half-past six in the morning in a great church at Buffalo\ncould possibly doubt--it has successfully avoided becoming either a\nparty society or a society rent by factions.\n\nIt is because I believe the witness of this Brotherhood to the true\nchurch spirit has already proved invaluable that I venture to dedicate\nthis little exposition of the great book of brotherhood--though without\nleave granted or asked--to its founder and president.\n\n\n\n\n{267}\n\nNOTE E.  See pp.  164, 166.\n\nTHE CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH (CATHOLIC) IN ST. PAUL IN ITS RELATION TO\nLOCAL CHURCHES.\n\nBy far the most frequent use of the word 'church' or 'churches' in the\nNew Testament is to designate a local society of Christians or a number\nof such societies taken together, 'the church at Jerusalem,' 'the\nchurch at Antioch,' 'the churches of Galatia,' 'the seven churches\nwhich are in Asia,' 'all the churches.'  But it is used also for the\nchurch as a whole.  In fact, before Christ's coming the word in the\nGreek of the Old Testament had passed from meaning an assembly of the\npeople, as in classical Greek, to meaning the sacred people as a\nwhole[1], as St. Stephen uses it in his speech 'The church in the\nwilderness' (Acts vii. 38).  And it is exactly in this sense that it is\nused by our Lord in St. Matthew, xvi. 18.  'The church' which our Lord\nthere promises to 'build' is the Church of the New Covenant as a whole.\nWe might paraphrase His words (as Dr. Hort suggests[2]) 'on this rock I\nwill build my Israel.'  Thus there is throughout the Acts and St.\nPaul's earlier epistles, a tendency to pass from the use of 'church' as\na local society to its use as designating the whole body of the\nfaithful.  This was but natural seeing that each local society did but\nrepresent the one divine society, the church of the Old Covenant,\nrefounded by Christ.  See Acts ix. 31: 'The church throughout all\nJudaea and Galilee and Samaria.' {268} xii. 1: 'Herod the king put\nforth his hands to afflict certain of the church.'  xx. 28: 'The church\nof God which he purchased with his own blood.'  Gal. i. 13: 'I\npersecuted the church of God.'  1 Cor. xii. 28: 'God hath set some in\nthe church, first apostles,' &c.  In this last passage and in St.\nPaul's speech to the Ephesian elders this general use of the term is\nunmistakable.\n\nIn the Epistle to the Ephesians, in which alone among his epistles St.\nPaul is writing not about the difficulties or needs of a particular\ncongregation, but about the church in its general conception, this\nlarger use of the term becomes dominant.  And the point to be noticed\nis that the church in general, or catholic church, is conceived of, not\nas made up of local churches, but as made up of individual members.\nThe local church would be regarded by St. Paul not as one element of a\ncatholic confederacy[3], but as the local representative of the one\ndivine and catholic society[4].  But the local church is not, according\nto St. Paul, a completely independent representative of the church as a\nwhole.  The apostles, as commissioned witnesses and representatives of\nChrist, are over all the churches.  They, or their recognized\nassociates and delegates, like Barnabas, Timothy and Titus, represent\nthe general church which every local church must, so to speak,\nreproduce.  The apostles therefore, or their representatives, give to\neach church when it is first founded 'the tradition' of truth and\nmorals which is permanently to mould it; and they maintain the\ntradition by a more or less constant supervision.  Thus they are {269}\nthe force which holds all 'the churches' together on a common basis.\n'So ordain I,' says St. Paul, 'in all the churches[5].'  'Hold fast the\ntraditions even as I delivered them to you[6].'  The apostle has, he\nteaches, an 'authority' commensurate with his 'stewardship[7],' an\nauthority 'which the Lord gave for the edification and not the\ndestruction[8]' of the Christians, but which at times must take the\nform of a 'rod' of chastisement[9].  The complete doctrinal and moral\nindependence of particular Churches is strongly denied by St. Paul in\nsuch phrases as 'Came the word of God unto you alone?' or, 'If any man\npreacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let\nhim be anathema[10].'\n\nDr. Hort's work on _The Christian Ecclesia_, in many respects, as would\nbe expected, most admirable, seems to me to minimize quite\nextraordinarily the apostolic authority.  The apostles, he says, were\nonly witnesses of Christ.  'There is no trace in Scripture of a formal\ncommission of authority for government from Christ Himself.'  This\nsurprising conclusion is reached by omitting many considerations.  Thus\nin St. Matthew xvi. 19 a definite grant of official authority--as\nappears in the passage, Is. xxii. 22, on which it is based--is promised\nto St. Peter, and he is on this occasion, as Dr. Hort himself\nmaintains, the representative of the apostles generally.  This\nstewardship granted to the apostles, to shepherd the flock and feed the\nhousehold of God, is implied again in St. Luke xii. 42, St. John xxi.\n15-17; and it seems to be quite unreasonable to dissociate the\nauthoritative commission to 'absolve and retain,' St. John xx. 20-23,\nfrom the apostolic office.  Dr. Hort would apparently {270} dissociate\nsuch passages as those last referred to from the apostolic office, and\nassign them to the church as a whole.  But how then does he account for\nthe authority inherent in the apostolic office, as it is represented by\nSt. Paul, and in the Acts?  St. Paul's conception of the authority of\nthe apostles is barely considered by him; and the authority of the\napostolate in the Acts is strangely minimized.  Nothing is said of\nSimon's impression--surely a true one--that the apostles had the\n'authority' to convey the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of\nhands (viii. 19).  Certainly the phrases used toward the churches of\nAntioch, Syria, and Cilicia, 'to whom we gave no commandment,' 'it\nseemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater\nburden than these necessary things,' imply a governmental authority,\nwhich, if it is shared by the presbyters, is substantially that of the\napostles (Acts xv. 24-28).\n\nDr. Hort also minimizes greatly the element of official authority which\nappears almost at once in the church by apostolic appointment and\ndelegation.  No doubt there was at first an authority allowed--as must\nalways be allowed--to the acknowledged possessors of extraordinary\ndivine gifts, especially to the 'prophets.'  But in the period of St.\nPaul's later activity, when he is facing the future of the church and\nhas apparently ceased to expect an immediate return of Christ, these\nspecial gifts retire into the background, while the ordinary functions\nof government, and administration of the word and sacraments, remain in\nthe position which they are permanently to occupy in the hands of\nregularly ordained officers.\n\nDr. Hort deals, as it seems to me, most unreasonably with the pastoral\nepistles.  It is surely arbitrary to dissociate 'the gift which was in\nTimothy by the laying on of St. Paul's hands,' the gift of power, and\nlove, and discipline; which Timothy is to 'stir up' (2 Tim. i. 6), from\n{271} that mentioned in the first epistle (iv. 14), 'the gift that is\nin thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the\nhands of the presbyters'; and to make the former a 'gift' of merely\npersonal piety.  And (even if the 'lay hands suddenly on no man' be\ninterpreted, as Ellicott and Hort would interpret it, of the reception\nof a penitent) it seems absurd to doubt, in view of what is said about\nthe laying on of hands in ordination of 'the seven' and of the\n'evangelist' Timothy, and in view of the place it held generally for\nconveying spiritual gifts in the Christian Church, that this was the\naccepted method of ordination in all cases; there being in fact no\nevidence to the contrary.\n\nOnce more, Dr. Hort is surely maintaining an impossible position when,\neven in face of the salutation to the Philippians, he denies that the\nterm 'episcopus' is used in the New Testament as a regular title of an\necclesiastical office.\n\nNot even Dr. Hort's reputation for soundness of judgement could stand\nagainst many posthumous publications such as _The Christian Ecclesia_.\n\n\n\n[1] _Not_, as Dr. Hort points out (_Christian Ecclesia_, p. 5), 'the\nelect (called-out) people.'  The word has in fact no such association\nattached to it.\n\n[2] pp. 10, 11.\n\n[3] Unless indeed, in Eph. iii. 21, we should understand 'every\nbuilding' as meaning every local church which, fitted together with\nevery other, grows into a holy temple, i.e. into that which only a\nreally catholic church can be.\n\n[4] The same statement would be true of St. Ignatius of Antioch.\n\n[5] 1 Cor. vii. 17.\n\n[6] 1 Cor. xi. 2, xv. 2.\n\n[7] 1 Cor. ix. 17.\n\n[8] 2 Cor. x. 8.\n\n[9] 1 Cor. iv, 21.\n\n[10] 1 Cor. xiv. 36; Gal. i. 8.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE F.  See p. 188.\n\nTHE ETHICS OF CATHOLICISM.\n\nThe world at large is fully aware of the claim of 'Catholicism,' i.e.\nthe claim of the one visible church for all sorts of men.  But the\nethical meaning of the claim has been strangely subordinated to its\ntheological and sacerdotal aspects.  Its ethical meaning seems to me to\nrequire developing under heads such as these:--\n\n1.  The requirement of mutual forbearance if men of all races and\nclasses and idiosyncrasies are to be bound {272} to belong to one\norganization and to worship in common, 'breaking the one bread.'\nHerein lies the moral discipline of Catholicism: see above, pp. 123\nfoll.\n\n2.  The consequent obligation of toleration in theology, ritual, &c.,\non all matters which do not touch the actual basis of the Christian\nfaith.  St. Cyprian, though he believed that those baptized outside the\nchurch were not baptized at all, yet deliberately remained in communion\nwith those bishops who thought differently, trusting to the mercy of\nGod to supply the supposed deficiency in those who, outside his\njurisdiction, were admitted into the church, as he believed, without\nbaptism.  And St. Augustine, who, most of ancient writers, understands\nthe moral meaning of Catholicism, repeatedly holds up this toleration\nof Cyprian as an example to the Donatist separatists of his own day:\n'If you seek advice from the blessed Cyprian, hear how much he\nanticipates from the mere advantage of unity: so much so that he did\nnot separate himself from those who held different opinions: and,\nthough he thought that those who are baptized outside the communion of\nthe church do not receive baptism at all, yet he believed that those\nwho had thus been simply _admitted_ into the church could on no other\nground than the bond of unity come under the divine pardon.'  Then he\nquotes Cyprian's words: 'But some one will say: what will happen to\nthose who in the past, when coming from heresy to the church, have been\nadmitted without baptism?  (I reply): God is powerful to grant them\nforgiveness by His mercy, and not to separate from the gifts of His\nchurch those who, after being thus simply admitted into her, have\nfallen asleep.'  And again: 'judging no man and separating no man from\nthe rights of communion because he thinks differently.'  And St.\nAugustine continues: 'All these catholic {273} unity embraces in her\nmotherly bosom, bearing one another's burdens in turn and endeavouring\nto keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, until, in\nwhatever respect they disagreed, the Lord should reveal (the truth) to\none or the other of them[1].'  Not to St. Paul then, only, but to St.\nCyprian and St. Augustine, doctrinal toleration is an essential of\nCatholicism.  Would to God the claim of the one church had not come to\nbe associated so generally with the opposite tendency!  See above, pp.\n158 f.\n\n3.  Catholicism, as meaning a church of all races and sorts of people,\npostulates a constant missionary enthusiasm in all the members of the\nchurch till this ideal be realized.  'To do the work of an evangelist,'\nto have the 'feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace,' to\nbe content to leave nothing but evil outside the church--that is to be\na real catholic.\n\n4.  To St. Paul's mind the Catholicism of the church is to lead the way\nto an even wider 'reconciliation.'  Through the catholic union of men\nin the church the whole universe is to come back into unity.  The\nkingdom of God is to be something wider than the church which exists to\nprepare for it.  This principle once recognized secures that the church\nshall feel and exhibit a constant interest in all departments of\nknowledge and progress.  The universe is one, and redemption is for the\nwhole.\n\n5.  Catholicism is the antithesis of esotericism.  All--men and women,\nslave or free, Greek or Scythian--are capable of full initiation into\nChristianity.  All--not apostles and presbyter-bishops and deacons\nonly--but all Christians make up the high priestly body and have on\ntheir foreheads the anointing oil: see above, pp. 111 ff.\n\nForbearance between divergent classes and races and\nindividuals--doctrinal toleration--missionary {274}\nenthusiasm--universal sympathy--recognition of a universal priesthood\nof Christianity--these constitute the moral content of Pauline\nCatholicism.\n\n\n\n[1] S. Aug. _de Baptismo_, ii. [xiii.] 18, [xiv.] 20.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE G.  See p. 190.\n\nTHE LAMBETH CONFERENCE AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS.\n\nThe 'Report of the Committee of the Lambeth Conference appointed to\nconsider and report upon the office of the Church with respect to\nindustrial problems--(_a_) the unemployed; (_b_) industrial\nco-operation,' is so much to the point as a statement of Christian\nsocial duty that I venture to reproduce the _first part of it_ here.\n\n\n'The Committee desire to begin their Report with words of thankful\nrecognition that throughout the Church of Christ, and not least in the\nChurches of our own Communion, there has been a marked increase of\nsolicitude about the problems of industrial and social life, and of\nsympathy with the struggles, sufferings, responsibilities, and\nanxieties, which those problems involve.\n\n'They hope that they rightly discern in this some increasing reflection\nin modern shape of the likeness of the Lord, in whose blessed life zeal\nfor the souls, and sympathy for the bodily needs of men were undivided\nfruits of a single love.\n\n'The Committee, before proceeding to touch upon two specific parts of\nthe subject, desire to record briefly what they deem to be certain\nprinciples of Christian duty in such matters.\n\n'The primary duty of the Church, as such, and, within her, of the\nClergy, is that of ministry to men in the things of character,\nconscience, and faith.  In doing this, she also does her greatest\nsocial duty.  Character in the {275} citizen is the first social need;\ncharacter, with its securities in a candid, enlightened, and vigorous\nconscience, and a strong faith in goodness and in God.  The Church owes\nthis duty to all classes alike.  Nothing must be allowed to distract\nher from it, or needlessly to impede or prejudice her in its discharge;\nand this requires of the Clergy, as spiritual officers, the exercise of\ngreat discretion in any attempt to bring within their sphere work of a\nmore distinctively social kind.\n\n'But while this cannot be too strongly said, it is not the whole truth.\nCharacter is influenced at every point by social conditions; and active\nconscience, in an industrial society, will look for moral guidance on\nindustrial matters.\n\n'Economic science does not claim to give this, its task being to inform\nbut not to determine the conscience and judgement.  But we believe that\nChrist our Master does give such guidance by His example and teachings,\nand by the present workings of His Spirit; and therefore under Him\nChristian authority must in a measure do the same, the authority, that\nis, of the whole Christian body, and of an enlightened Christian\nopinion.  This is part of the duty of the Christian Society, as\nwitnessing for Christ and representing Him in this present world,\noccupied with His work of setting up the Kingdom of God, under and\namidst the natural conditions of human life.  In this work the clergy,\nwhose special duty it is to ponder the bearings of Christian\nprinciples, have their part; but the Christian laity, who deal directly\nwith the social and economic facts, can do even more.\n\n'The Committee believe that it would be wholly wrong for Christian\nauthority to attempt to interfere with the legitimate evolution of\neconomic and social thought and life by taking a side corporately in\nthe debates between rival social theories or systems.  It will not (for\nexample), {276} at the present day, attempt to identify Christian duty\nwith the acceptance of systems based respectively on collective or\nindividual ownership of the means of production.\n\n'But they submit that Christian social duty will operate in two\ndirections:--\n\n'1.  The recognition, inculcation, and application of certain Christian\nprinciples.  They offer the following as examples:--\n\n(_a_) The principle of Brotherhood.  This principle of Brotherhood, or\nFellowship in Christ, proclaiming, as it does, that men are members one\nof another, should act in all the relations of life as a constant\ncounterpoise to the instinct of competition.\n\n(_b_) The principle of Labour.  That every man is bound to service--the\nservice of God and man.  Labour and service are to be here understood\nin their widest and most inclusive sense; but in some sense they are\nobligatory on all.  The wilfully idle man, and the man who lives only\nfor himself, are out of place in a Christian community.  Work,\naccordingly, is not to be looked upon as an irksome necessity for some,\nbut as the honourable task and privilege of all.\n\n(_c_) The principle of Justice.  God is no respecter of persons.\nInequalities, indeed, of every kind are inwoven with the whole\nprovidential order of human life, and are recognized emphatically in\nour Lord's words.  But the social order cannot ignore the interests of\nany of its parts, and must, moreover, be tested by the degree in which\nit secures for each freedom for happy, useful, and untrammelled life,\nand distributes, as widely and equitably as may be, social advantages\nand opportunities.\n\n(_d_) The principle of Public Responsibility.  A Christian community,\nas a whole, is morally responsible for {277} the character of its own\neconomic and social order, and for deciding to what extent matters\naffecting that order are to be left to individual initiative, and to\nthe unregulated play of economic forces.  Factory and sanitary\nlegislation, the institution of Government labour departments and the\ninfluence of Government, or of public opinion and the press, or of\neminent citizens, in helping to avoid or reconcile industrial\nconflicts, are instances in point.\n\n'2.  Christian opinion should be awake to repudiate and condemn either\nopen breaches of social justice and duty, or maxims and principles of\nan un-Christian character.  It ought to condemn the belief that\neconomic conditions are to be left to the action of material causes and\nmechanical laws, uncontrolled by any moral responsibility.  It can\npronounce certain conditions of labour to be intolerable.  It can\ninsist that the employer's personal responsibility, as such, is not\nlost by his membership in a commercial or industrial Company.  It can\npress upon retail purchasers the obligation to consider not only the\ncheapness of the goods supplied to them, but also the probable\nconditions of their production.  It can speak plainly of evils which\nattach to the economic system under which we live, such as certain\nforms of luxurious extravagance, the widespread pursuit of money by\nfinancial gambling, the dishonesties of trade into which men are driven\nby feverish competition, and the violences and reprisals of industrial\nwarfare.\n\n'It is plain that in these matters disapproval must take every\ndifferent shade, from plain condemnation of undoubted wrong to\ntentative opinions about better and worse.  Accordingly any organic\naction of the Church, or any action of the Church's officers, as such,\nshould be very carefully restricted to cases where the rule of right is\npractically clear, and much the larger part of the matter {278} should\nbe left to the free and flexible agency of the awakened Christian\nconscience of the community at large, and of its individual members.\n\n'If the Christian conscience be thus awakened and active, it will\nsecure the best administration of particular systems, while they exist,\nand the modification or change of them, when this is required by the\nprogress of knowledge, thought, and life.\n\n'It appears to follow from what precedes that the great need of the\nChurch, in this connexion, is the growth and extension of a serious,\nintelligent, and sympathetic opinion on these subjects, to which\nnumberless Christians have as yet never thought of applying Christian\nprinciples.  There has been of late no little improvement in this\nrespect, but much remains to be done, and with this view the Committee\ndesire to make the following definite recommendation.\n\n'They suggest that, wherever possible, there should be formed, as a\npart of local Church organization, Committees consisting chiefly of\nlaymen, whose work should be to study social and industrial problems\nfrom the Christian point of view, and to assist in creating and\nstrengthening an enlightened public opinion in regard to such problems,\nand promoting a more active spirit of social service, as a part of\nChristian duty.\n\n'Such Committees, or bodies of Church workers in the way of social\nservice, while representing no one class of society, and abstaining\nfrom taking sides in any disputes between classes, should fearlessly\ndraw attention to the various causes in our economic, industrial, and\nsocial system, which call for remedial measures on Christian\nprinciples.'\n\nAbundant illustration of the kind of matters with which such Committees\nmight deal will be found in the report.\n\n\n\n\nOXFORD: HORACE HART\n\nPRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY","title":"St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians: A Practical Exposition","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":62572}