Quintilian, too, is not sparing of his praise of the writings of Isocrates, although he thinks that elaboration is carried too far in them. He says: "Isocrates, polished and artistic in all kinds of writing, and adapted rather to the schools than to actual life, exhibits all the charms of speech; and with reason, too, for he wrote for the public assembly, rather than the judges. He is ready in invention, studious of honor and honesty, and so painstaking in style that it becomes faulty." 1

1 See Instit. Lib. 10, and cf. also Lib. 2. c. 9; Lib. 3. 1; Lib. 9, etc.; Hremog.; Πολὺ τὸ καθαιρὸν τῆς λέξεως παρ' Ισοκράτει. ; Plin. Ep. Lib. 6 : Nec vero Isocrati, quominas haberetur summus orator effecit, quod infirmitate vocis et mollitia frontis, quominus in publico diceret, impediebatur.

(To be continued.)

ARTICLE II.

CHRIST AND PAUL.

BY REV. J. H. MOILVAINE, D.D., NEWARK, N.J.

Ir is evident, even to a cursory reader of the New Testament, that there are differences between our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostle Paul with respect to the verbal and intellectual forms in which they set forth the truths of the gospel. These differences are regarded by all Christians, of course, not as involving anything of the nature of inconsistency, but as pertaining merely to forms of presentation; yet the more they are contemplated the more striking and significant they become. We propose, therefore, to examine them with some attention, in order to elicit their meaning, if they have any which can help us to a better understanding of revealed truth.

The general characteristics of the Lord's teaching to which we refer are the following: He reveals the truths of the spiritual world on his own absolute authority, as intuitively perceived by himself, with the least possible resort to logical processes, in concrete forms, and highly figurative language: "Never man spake like this man. ... For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes." He seldom refers to the preceding Scriptures, and then, as it would seem, quite as much for the purpose of confirming the truth of their declarations as that of his own. He does not hesitate to supersede their deliverances, upon occasion, by new revelations, as in the case of the Mosaic laws of marriage and divorce. He seems carefully to avoid abstractions and definitions. Figures and symbols of various kinds and great boldness abound in his discourses, which he seldom interprets, and then evidently without aiming at exactness or precision. He never explains how far his similitudes are to be carried.

The sublime truths which he throws out with almost every breath he leaves, without precise boundaries and necessary qualifications, to work as vital principles their own effects and consequences in human life. Such are the parables of the unjust steward, the unjust judge, the friend of whom one came to borrow bread at midnight, and the following words: "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Evidently he feels no solicitude or concern for the systematic harmony of the truths which he delivers, although they are often so remote from each other that they have the appearance of being inconsistent or contradictory. The following are examples: "I and my Father are one.... My Father is greater than I. ... There is none good but one, that is God. ... Which of you convinceth me of sin?... Ye will not come to me that ye might have life. ... No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him. ... All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ... To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give.... No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." Hence these and similar antinomies in our Lord's teaching Have proved the fruitful germs of vast and hostile systems of theology. But so rigorously does he himself abstain from all attempts at systematization that even such words as regeneration, justification, and sanctification, together with their verbal forms, he hardly ever uses, and never, as it would seem, to express those defined theological ideas which they commonly represent in the writings of Paul. In his mouth they have a free and popular sense, as in the following quo tations: "By thy words thou shalt be justified. ... I sanctify myself.... Ye which have followed me in the regeneration.” In the place of justification by faith, or being accepted as righteous, as this form of doctrine stands in Paul, he everywhere insists upon the forgiveness of sins and the more comprehensive form of salvation by faith: "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. ... He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. ... If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die

in your sins." In fine, he rather assumes by implication than enunciates the doctrines of the divine decrees, foreordination, and election, which, in the writings of Paul are carefully stated, copiously developed, and variously applied. In all these and many other particulars of form, the teaching of the Master differs from that of his great apostle. For Paul appeals to the preceding Scriptures, and to Christ himself, as ultimate authorities, not only for his readers, but also for his own mind. He delivers the truth in abstract, rather than in concrete forms. His language is hardly more figurative or symbolical than was unavoidable. He interprets and applies the types and symbols of the Old Testament; but he does not teach by parables or allegories of his own. He is eminently systematic, argumentative, and logical. He delights in abstruse processes of reasoning, and canvasses with great rigor the objections which arise against his doctrines. He strongly insists upon the harmony of the whole scheme of revealed truth, both in itself and with the providential history of the people of God from Abraham to his own time; and he takes special pains to reconcile the legal dispensation under Moses with the doctrines of salvation by grace and faith as revealed in germ to Abraham, taught by Christ, and elaborated by himself. But above all, he lays the greatest stress upon the divine decrees, predestination, election, and justification by faith; which last he evidently regards as the most important form of truth for the object which he has in view, since it is the theme of his most labored epistles, and the substratum itself of all his writings.

Such, in general, without taking into account the qualifications which these statements may require, are the most obvious differences in form between the teaching of Christ and that of Paul, as represented in the reported words of the one and in the extant writings of the other. How are we to understand them? And how do they help us to a better appreciation of revealed truth? These are the questions which we have now to consider.

For our present purpose, however, it is hardly necessary

to observe that the absolute authority claimed by our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficiently accounted for by the orthodox doctrine of his divinity; whilst Paul, as his disciple and apostle, could not do otherwise than recognize the authority of his Master, and of the Scriptures as inspired by his Spirit - all the more, indeed, as he himself was under the same inspiration. Perhaps, also, some of these differences may be explained by the peculiarities of Paul's mental constitution and education, which, as in the case of the other sacred writers, his inspiration certainly did not obliterate. But most of those which have been indicated cannot be disposed of in this summary way, but must be regarded as having a deeper significance. Accordingly, some sceptical authors have maintained that they are not merely differences of form, but of essential doctrine; moreover, that in the history of the church the doctrinal system of the disciple has prevailed over, or thrown into the shade, the unsystematic teaching of the Master. Hence what we call Christianity they call Paulinism. We may find hereafter that this error, as in most other cases, is not without a shadow of truth. Others, who cannot be classed with sceptics, would account for these differences by the statement that Christ was the originator of Christianity, and Paul was its first great philosophical expounder. Among Christians, however, it seems to be the most received explanation that there is a progress of revelation in the New Testament, such that what Christ delivered in germ or principle Paul develops, formulates, and systematizes. In confirmation of this view, which differs but little from the preceding, the following declarations of the Lord are cited: "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.... He will show you things to come. ... He shall bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." It is claimed that these and similar passages contain a promise of a more full and complete revelation than was given by the Lord himself, which, accordingly, we are supposed to have in the subsequent writings of his apostles.