the sensuous perversion of the religious sentiment, and might easily be misinterpreted in favour of that false spiritualism? Would he have said, "Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more; but only a spiritual Christ who is exalted above all limited earthly relations, with whom we can now enter into communion in a spiritual manner, since we have a share in the new spiritual creation proceeding from him;" 2 Cor. v. 16, 17.'

When Paul appealed to the revelations imparted to him, it was not for the confutation of those who supported themselves only by such inward experiences; but of those principally who would not acknowledge him as a genuine apostle, equal to those who were chosen by Christ during his earthly life, the same persons, against whom he maintained his independent apostolic commission, as delivered to him by Christ on his personal appearance to him; 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2.

Had he been called to oppose the tendency of a false mysticism and spiritualism, he, who understood so well how to strike at the root of error and delusion, would have certainly entered more fully into conflict with an erroneous direction of the religious sentiment, so dangerous to genuine Christianity, for which he would have had the best opportunity in treating of the gifts of the Spirit.

2

We must then consider this view of the Christ-party as entirely unsupported by this epistle of Paul, and only deduced from it by a number of arbitrary interpretations. While those whose views we are opposing, trace the origin of such a party to a certain tendency of Judaism, we, on the contrary, are obliged to refer it to a Grecian element.

From the peculiar qualities of the Grecian mind, which was not disposed to submit itself to an objective authority, but readily moulded everything in a manner conformable to its own subjectivity, such a tendency as that we have been

1 These words contain a contrast to his former Jewish standingpoint, and his earlier conception of the character of the Messiah; also to all that was antecedent to Christianity, and independent of it; for from this standing-point all things must in some measure become new. 2 I find no ground for a comparison with Montanism, Marcion, and the Clementines, and I must consider as arbitrary the explanations that have been given of the first epistle of Clemens Romanus (to which, too, I cannot ascribe so high an antiquity), in order to elucidate the affairs of the Corinthian church in the times of the apostle Paul.

speaking of, might easily proceed.' At that time, there were many educated and half-educated individuals, who were dissatisfied with the popular Polytheism. These persons listened to the words of Christ, which impressed them by their sublimity and spirituality, and believed that in him they had met with a reformer of the religious condition of mankind, such as they had been longing for. We have already remarked, that a collection of the memorable actions and discourses of Christ, had most probably been in circulation from a very early period. Might they not have procured such a document, and then constructed by means of it, a peculiar form of Christian doctrine, modelled according to their Grecian subjectivity? These persons probably belonged to the class of the wisdom-seeking Greeks, at which we need not be surprised, although the Christian church made little progress among the higher classes, since in this city a superior degree of refinement was universally prevalent, and from the words which tell us, that in the Corinthian church, not many of the philosophically trained, not many of the highest class were to be found, we may infer, that some such persons must have belonged to it; one individual is mentioned in Romans xvi. 23, who filled an important civil office in Corinth.2

But against this supposition, the same objections may be urged, which we made against another view of the Christparty, that Paul has not specially directed his argumentation against the principles of such a party, though they threatened even more than those of other parties to injure apostolic Christianity. Still what he says on other occasions, respecting the only source of the knowledge of truths that rest on divine Revelation;—and against the presumption of unenlightened reason, setting herself up as an arbitress of divine things; and on the nothingness of a proud philosophy, (1 Cor. ii. 11,) forms the most powerful argumentation against

1 The reasons alleged by Bauer, in his late essay on this subject, why such a form of error could not exist at this time, do not convince me. 2 Bauer says (p. 11), " Religion, not philosophy, would lead to Christianity." But it is not altogether improbable, that a person might be led by a religious interest, which could find no satisfaction in the popular religion, to philosophy, and by the same interest be carried onwards to Christianity, without adopting it in its unalloyed simplicity. Why should not such phenomena, which certainly occurred in the second century, have arisen from the same causes at this period?

the fundamental error of this party, though he might not have it specially in view; and it is a never-failing characteristic of the apostle's mode of controversy, that he seizes hold of the main roots of error, instead of busying himself too much (as was the practice of later ecclesiastical polemics) with its branches and offsets. Nor is it altogether improbable, that the adherents of this party were not numerous, and exercised only a slight influence in the church. They occupied too remote a standing-point to receive much benefit from the warnings and arguments of Paul, and he had only to set the church on its guard against an injurious intercourse with such persons. "Be not deceived," said he, "evil communications corrupt good manners.' 1 Cor. xv. 33.

The opposition between the Pauline and Petrine parties, or the Jewish and Gentile Christians, was in reference to the relations of life, the most influential of all these party differences, and gave rise to many separate controversies. The Jews and Jewish Christians when they lived in intercourse with heathens, suffered inuch disquietude, if unawares they partook of any food which had been rendered unclean by its connexion with idolatrous rites. Various rules were laid down by the Jewish theologians to determine what was, and what was not defiling, and various methods were devised for guarding against such defilement, on which much may be found in the Talmud. Now, as persons might easily run a risk of buying in the market portions of the flesh of animals which had been offered in sacrifice, or might have such set before them in houses where they were guests, their daily life was harassed with constant perplexities. Scruples on this point were probably found, not merely in those who were avowedly among the Judaizing opponents of Paul, but also seized hold of many Christians of weaker minds. As faith in their false gods had previously exercised great influence over them, so they could not altogether divest themselves of an impression, that beings whom they had so lately reverenced as deities, were something more than creatures of the imagination. But from their new standing-point, this reflection of their ancient faith assumed a peculiar form. As the whole system of heathenism was in their eyes the kingdom of darkness, their deities were now transformed into evil spirits, and they feared lest, by partaking of the flesh consecrated to

them,' they should come into fellowship with evil spirits.2 That these scruples affected not merely Judaizers, but other Christians also, is evident from a case in reference to which Paul gives specific directions. He supposes, namely, the case, that such weak believers were guests at the table of a heathen.3 Now we may be certain, that none who belonged to the Judaizers would make up their minds to eat with a heathen.* 1 Thus Peter, in the Clementines, says to the heathens, ρopáσe τῶν λεγομένων ἱεροθυτῶν χαλεπῶν δαιμόνων ἐμπίμπλασθε. Hom. xi. § 15.

2 The passage in 1 Cor. viii. 7, may be understood of persons who though they had passed over to Christian monotheism, were still in some measure entangled in polytheism, and could not entirely free themselves from the belief that the gods whom they had formerly served were divinities of a subordinate class; so that now such persons -since by partaking of the flesh of the victims they supposed that they entered again into connexion with these divine beings-would be led to imagine, that their former idolatry was not wholly incompatible with Christianity, and thus might easily form an amalgamation of heathenism and Christianity. In later times, something of this kind we allow took place, in the transition from polytheism to monotheism; but in this primitive age, Christianity came at once into such direct conflict on these particulars with heathenism, that an amalgamation of this kina cannot be thought natural. Whoever had not wholly renounced idolatry would certainly not be received into the Christian church, nor would have so mildly passed judgment on such a weakness of faith. From such passages as Gal. v. 20, 1 Cor. vi. 9, we cannot conclude with certainty that, among those who had professed Christianity, there would be such who, after they had been led to Christianity by an impression which was not deep enough, allowed themselves again to join in the worship of idols; for Paul might here designedly class the vices he named with idolatry, in order to indicate that whoever indulged in the vices connected with idolatry, deserved to be ranked with idolaters. If we compare these passages with 1 Cor. v. 11, it will appear that some such instances occurred of a relapse into idolatry, but those who were thus guilty of participating in idolatry must have been excluded from all Christian communion.

3 The scrupulosity of the Jews in this respect appears in the JewishChristian work of the Clementines (though on other points sufficiently liberal), where the following words are ascribed to the apostle Peter: τραπέζης ἐθνῶν οὐκ ἀπολαύομεν, ἅτε δὴ οὐδὲ συνεστιᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς δυνάμενοι διὰ τὸ ἀκαθάρτως αὐτοὺς βιοῦν. No exception could be made in favour of parents, children, brothers, or sisters.

By the Tls, 1 Cor. x. 28, on account of the relation of the first ris, v. 27, we understand it to mean the same person, the heathen host,and it would be a very unlikely thing that such a person would remind his Christian guest, that he had set before him meat that had been offered to idols; but we must rather refer it to the weak Christian, who considered it to be his duty to warn his unscrupulous brother

Those who in their own estimation were Pauline Christians, ridiculed a scrupulosity that thus made daily life uneasy, and fell into an opposite error. They had indeed formed right conceptions of the Pauline principles in reference to theory, but erred in the application, because the spirit of love and of wisdom was wanting. They said: "Idols are in themselves nothing, mere creatures of the imagination; hence, also the eating of the flesh that has been devoted to them, is a thing in itself indifferent. The Christian is bound by no law in such outward or indifferent things; all things are free to him; TUVтa čĘεOTIV was their motto. They appealed to their knowledge, to the power which they possessed as Christians; yvwoc, Lovoía, were their watchwords. They had no consideration for the necessities of their weaker brethren; they easily seduced many among them to follow their example from false shame, that they might not be ridiculed as narrow-minded and scrupulous; such an one, who allowed himself to be induced by outward considerations to act contrary to his convictions, would afterwards be disturbed in his conscience. "Thus," said Paul, "through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died." Many went such lengths in this pride of knowledge and this abuse of Christian freedom, that they scrupled not to take part in the festive entertainments, consisting of the flesh that was left after the sacrifices had been presented, which the heathens were wont to give their friends; and thus they were easily carried on to indulge in those immoral excesses, which by the decrees of the apostolic convention at Jerusalem, were forbidden in connexion with the eating of flesh sacrificed to idols. In fact, we here find the germ of a one-sided over-valuation of theoretic illumination, a misunderstanding of Christian freedom, a false adiaphorism in morals, which a later pseudo-pauline gnostic2 tendency carried so far as to justify the grossest im

against partaking of such food, the same weak Christian whose conscience is spoken of in v. 29.

1 We might here make use of the words attributed to Christ taken from an apocryphal gospel, and quoted in Luke vi. 4, by the Codex Cantab.: τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τὶ ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἶ· εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου.—See Das Leben Jesu, p. 140.

2 As was the case with those whom Porphyry mentions in his book De Abstinentia Carnis, i. § 43, who agree in their mode of expression