We find, indeed, in one passage of Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 14, a trace, that already the children of Christians where distinguished from the children of heathens, and might be considered in a certain sense as belonging to the church, but this is not deduced from their having partaken of baptism, and this mode of connexion with the church is rather evidence against the existence of infant baptism. The apostle is here treating of the sanctifying influence of the communion between parents and children, by which the children of Christian parents would be distinguished from the children of those who were not Christian, and in virtue of which they might in a certain sense be termed ἅγια, in contrast with the ακάθαρτα But if infant baptism had been then in existence, the epithet ❝yın, applied to Christian children, would have been deduced only from this sacred rite by which they had become incorporated with the Christian church. But in the point of view here chosen by Paul, we find (although it testifies against the existence of infant baptism) the fundamental idea from which infant baptism was afterwards necessarily developed, and by which it

1

1st of February, the Februationes. He thought it important to remark, that Paul could not have approved of such a practice. "Viderit institutio ista. Kalendæ si forte Februariæ respondebunt illi: pro mortuis petere. Noli ergo apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem ejus denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem, quanto illi qui vane pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc facerent." And he himself afterwards proposes another interpretation of the passage, according to which there is no allusion to a substitutionary baptism. Later uneducated Marcionites in Syria had, most probably from this passage of St. Paul's, adopted a practice altogether at variance with the spirit of Marcion. Besides, we might suppose that Paul employed an argumentum ad hominem, and adduced a superstitious custom as evidence of a truth lying at the foundation of Christian knowledge. But still it is difficult to suppose that Paul, who so zealously opposed all dependence on outward things, and treated it as the worst adulteration of the gospel, should not from the first have expressed himself in the strongest terms against such a delusion.

1 The immediate impressions-which proceed from the whole of the intercourse of life, and by means of the natural feeling of dependence of children on their parents, pass from the latter to the former-have a far stronger hold than the effects of instruction, and such impressions may begin before the ability for receiving instruction in a direct manner exists. These impressions attach themselves to the first germs of consciousness, and on that account, the commencement of this sanctifying influence cannot be precisely determined. See De Wette's excellent remarks in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839. Part iii. p. 671.

must be justified to agree with Paul's sentiments; an indication of the preeminence belonging to children born in a Christian community; the consecration for the kingdom of God which is thereby granted to them, an immediate sanctifying influence which would communicate itself to their earliest development.'

As to the celebration of the Holy Supper, it continued to be connected with the common meal, in which all as members of one family joined, as in the primitive Jewish church, and agreeably to its first institution. In giving a history of the Corinthian church, we shall have occasion to speak of the abuses which arose from the mixture of ancient Grecian customs with the Christian festival.

The publication of the gospel among the heathen, was destitute of those facilities for its reception, which the long-continued expectation of a Redeemer as the promised Messiah gave it among the Jews. Here was no continuous succession of witnesses forming a revelation of the living God, with which the gospel, as already indicated and foretold by the law and prophets among the Jews, might connect itself. Still the annunciation of a Redeemer found its point of connexion in the universal feeling adhering to the very essence of human nature—the feeling of disunion and guilt, and as a consequence of this, though not brought out with distinctness, a longing after redemption from such a condition; and by the mental development of these nations, and their political condition at that period, sentiments of this class were more

If

1 The words in 1 Cor. vii. 14, nay be taken in a twofold manner. we understand with De Wette the uav as applied to all Christians(which the connexion and the use of the plural render probable)—then the apostle infers that the children of Christians, although not incorporated with the church, nor yet baptized, might be called ayia (which is De Wette's opinion), and thus what we have remarked in the text follows as a necessary consequence. But if we admit that Paul is speaking of the case of married persons, in which one party was a Christian, and the other a heathen, and that from the sanctification of the children of such a marriage, he infers the sanctification of the whole marriage relation-which thought perfectly suits the connexion-then it would appear that Paul deduces a sanctification of the children by their connexion with the parents, but not from their baptism, for the baptism of children, in these circumstances, could, in many instances, be hardly performed. If an infant baptism then existed, he could not call the children of such a mixed marriage äyta, in the same sense as the children of parents who were both Christians.

vividly felt, while the feeling of disunion (in man's own powers, and between man and God) was manifested in the prevailing tendency towards dualistic views. The youthful confidence of the old world was constantly giving way to a feeling of disunion and sadness excited by the more powerful sense of the law written on the heart, which, like the external law given to the Jews, was destined to guide the Gentiles to the Saviour. The gospel could not be presented in the relation it bore to Judaism, as the completion of what already existed in the popular religion; it must come forth as the antagonist of the heathenish deification of nature, and could only attach itself to the truth lying at the foundation of this enormity, the sense, namely, in the human breast of a hidden, unknown deity; it was necessary to announce Christianity as the revelation of that God in whom, by virtue of their divine original, men "lived and moved and had their being," but of whom, in consequence of their estrangement from him by sin, they had only a mysterious sense as an unknown and distant divinity. Under this aspect it might also be represented as a completion of that which was implanted by God in the original constitution of man, as the final aim of this indistinct longing. Also, in relation to all that was truly natural, belonging to the original nature of man, and not founded in sin, it might be truly asserted, that Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil. And here certainly the Gentiles were placed in a more advantageous position than the Jews; they were not exposed to the temptation of contemplating Christianity only as the completion of a religious system already in existence, and of disowning its purpose of producing an entire transformation of the life; for to a convert from heathenism, Christianity presenting itself in direct opposition to the whole of his former religious standingpoint, must necessarily appear as something altogether new and designed to effect an entire revolution. Meanwhile, although Christianity must have at first presented itself as opposed to the existing elements of life in heathenism; yet Christians who continued to live in intercourse with heathens among their old connexions, were so much the more exposed in a practical view to the infection of a corrupt state of morals, till their Christian life became firmly established. And although the peculiar position of the Gentiles did not expose them so much as the Jews to pervert the gospel into an opus

operatum, and thus to misuse it as a cloak for immorality, still such an error might arise, not from the influence of Judaizing teachers, but from the depraved condition of human nature. It is evident that Paul deemed it necessary emphatically to guard and warn them against it. 1

Another danger of a different kind threatened Christianity when it' found its way among the educated classes in the seats of Grecian learning. Since in these places the love of knowledge predominated, and surpassed in force all the other fundamental tendencies of human nature; since men were disposed to cultivate intellectual eminence to the neglect of morals, and Christianity gave a far wider scope than heathenism to the exercise of the mental powers; since in many respects it agreed with those among the Grecian philosophers, who rested their opposition to the popular religions on an ethical basis; the consequence was, that they made Christianity, contrary to its nature and design, chiefly an exercise of the understanding, and aimed to convert it into a philosophy, thus subordinating the practical interest to the theoretical, and obscuring the real genius of the gospel. The history of the further spread of Christianity among the heathen, and of individual churches founded among them, will give us an opportunity of developing this fact, and setting it in a clearer light. We now proceed to the second missionary journey of the apostle Paul,

CHAPTER VI.

THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

AFTER Paul and Barnabas had spent some time with the church at Antioch, they resolved to revisit the churches founded in the course of their former missionary journey, and then to extend their labours still further. Barnabas wished to take his nephew Mark again with them as a companion, but Paul refused his assent to this proposal, for he could not

The Kevol λóyol, against which Paul warns the Ephesians, (v. 6.)

excuse his having allowed attachment to home to render him unfaithful to the Lord's service, and deemed one who was not ready to sacrifice every thing to this cause as unfitted for such a vocation. We see on this occasion the severe earnestness of Paul's character, which gave up, and wished others to give up, all personal considerations and feelings where the cause of God was concerned; he never allowed himself to be tempted or seduced in this respect by his natural attachment to the nation to whom he belonged.' The indulgence shown by Barnabas to Mark might proceed either from the peculiar mildness of his Christian character, or from a regard to the ties of relationship not yet sufficiently controlled by the power of the Christian spirit. That such human attachments had too much influence on Barnabas, is shown by his conduct at Antioch on the occasion of the conference between Peter and Paul. Thus a sudden difference arose between two men who had hitherto laboured together in the work of the Lord, which ended in their separation from one another, and thus it was shown, that these men of God were not free from human weakness; but the event proved that even this circumstance contributed to the extension of the kingdom of God, for, in consequence of it, the circle of their labours was very greatly enlarged. Barnabas now formed a sphere of action for himself, and first of all visited with Mark his native country Cyprus, and then most probably devoted himself to preach the gospel in other regions. For that he remained in his native country unemployed in missionary service, not only his labours up to this time forbid our supposing, but also the terms in which Paul speaks of him at a later period (1 Cor. ix. 6) as a well-known and indefatigable preacher of the gospel. Paul's severity towards his nephew was probably of service to Mark in leading him to a sense of his misconduct, for he afterwards continued faithful to his vocation. This separation was in the issue only temporary, for we afterwards find Barnabas, Paul, and Mark, in close connexion with one another, although Barnabas appears

In the prov of Rom. i. 16, we cannot, with Rückert, find marks of this national attachment not entirely overcome. This πρῶτον corresponds with the necessary historical development of the theocracy. The supposition is also excluded by the application of πрŵтоv in Rom. ii. 9.