instance, as the destruction of Jerusalem, the judgment on the corrupt Theocracy, the dissolution of outward Judaism, would be brought about. But in the second place, it was admitted that many who felt themselves compelled to acknow ledge the operations of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles, as shown in their agreeing in the fundamental position of the alone justifying power of faith-still, without giving themselves a clear account of the reason, could not resolve to give up the outward Judaism, from which the whole of their religious development had proceeded; for in religion, to put away the outward, which has grown up intertwined with so many devotional feelings, is always a most difficult task; and this was more especially the case in the relation of Christianity to Judaism, since in the latter so many things might be spiritualised in the Christian. Thus a James might find it very difficult to resolve to renounce altogether the outward observances of Judaism. It was otherwise, as appears from what we have already said, with the apostle Peter. At all events, we can find in the conduct of the elder apostles nothing of indecision or inconsequence-nothing implying a claim, that when they acknowledged that the Gospel without the Law was designed for Gentiles as well as for Jews, they felt compelled to take a part in preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles on a contrary principle. There was evidently nothing of the kind. It argued no inconsistency that they considered that alone as a call from God, indicated by historical development, to form a transition-point to the Gospel for the Jews; just as Paul regarded it as his vocation, indicated by his peculiar religious development, to be the apostle of the Gentiles. Not in these principles lay an indecision and inconsequence, which would have punished themselves by their consequences, and brought on those later dissensions between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It was the fault of men that the views of the guiding wisdom of the apostles could not be accomplished, since so many knew not how to enter into these principles and the spirit which had suggested them. Well-intended plans of conciliation seldom attain their end among conflicting contrarieties.

"The most important points, accordingly, were first of all discussed between Paul, James, Peter, and John. Then, in particular circles, Paul and Barnabas narrated what God had

VOL. II.

effected by their preaching among the Gentiles, and their accounts were received with friendly sympathy."

P. 116, 1. 16, "Titus," (note.) It appears from Paul's own representation, he had no share in any part of this proceeding; for he distinguishes expressly (Gal. ii. 4—6) the false brethren from the δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι. By the name of false brethren, certainly those persons were designated who did not acknowledge the believing Gentiles as true brethren in the faith, and did not admit the principle on which the Christian community was founded, that faith in Jesus as the Messiah is the only and sufficient means of salvation for all. Paul was one with the apostles in opposition to these views. But it may be asked whether that dispute broke out before or after the explanation between Paul and the elder apostles. The former is far more probable; for as that explanation was for him the principal object of his journey to Jerusalem, he would attend to it before anything else.

P. 119, note 2, after the last line, add, "In this new edition I must adhere to this explanation, and cannot agree with that recommended by Dr. Baur after Gieseler—namely, that these words contain a reason for the leading thought that the Gentiles, by faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, must be also incorporated in the kingdom of God; for if this could have been effected by the Mosaic Law, it must long ago have been brought to pass, since the Mosaic Law must have been sufficiently known to them, as it was read every Sabbath in the synagogues. I cannot find this sense indicated in the words. Had this been intended, I should have expected an addition to v. 21, "in every city in which Gentiles dwell," and yet this would have said too much. And the leading thought-" and yet this has not effected the conversion of the Gentiles"-must have been actually expressed. should consider ourselves quite unauthorized, arbitrarily to supply so important a proposition. According to my view, only something unessential is supplied in a proposition which the speaker merely expresses incidentally, and then hastens away from it."

We

P. 121, 1. 10 from bottom, for "principles" read "motives." P. 122, 1. 16, for "principles" read "motives."

P. 128, 1. 6 from bottom, after "prefigured," add, "the reconciliation of man with God."

P. 131, after "1 Cor. xiii." add, "Which Schleiermacher also acknowledges in his work on Christian Morals, p. 308. Yet we cannot perfectly agree with him when he asserts that the predominant Christian idea for everything which can be called virtue in the higher sense of the word, is xapiopa. Inasmuch, indeed, as along with the Christian disposition all the virtues belonging to the essence of its practical exemplification in life are not given at once-inasmuch as its development is gradual, and hence it may follow, that in the unity of the same disposition, one virtue may predominate in one person, and another in another, the name Charisma may be applied to it. Yet this difference is found to exist for the full soundness of the Christian life in every man, and for the good success of every labour for the kingdom of God, the cooperations of all the fundamental or cardinal virtues is required; but the same cannot be said of all the peculiar capabilities which are marked by the name of Charisma, lying outside the department of morals, although appropriated by it. In this respect it cannot be laid down at once as a requirement, that they should all be connected with one another in every individual. Rather is this excluded by the idea of individuality. Peculiar charisms belong to every one, which do not exist in others; and this indicates the need of individuals having their deficiencies made up by others, like the collective members of one body; to the soundness of the body belongs the connecting organism of all the charisms proceeding from the appropriation of the collective life of humanity by the divine life of Christianity."

P. 132, 1. 14 from bottom, after "itself" add, "But as to all Christian truths, as far as they proceed from the connexion of the sphere of the new higher life which the Holy Spirit alone can disclose, is given the name of mysteries."

P. 138, 1. 2 from bottom, add, "We see how already in these peculiar modes in which the Divine Spirit who animated the church operated, in these original charisms, the various activities belonging to the perfect development of the reason, which would afterwards be animated by Christianity, are foreshadowed, such as the exposition of what is written or spoken by others, and criticism.

"In the charism of didaσkalía itself, we find again a difference in raference to the λόγος γνώσεως and the λόγος

Topías. It is evident, from the manner in which they are mentioned separately (1 Cor. xii. 8), that there is a certain distinction between them, but it is difficult to ascertain what it is precisely. Elsewhere the word yvwois denotes the theoretical in distinction from the practical, and refers tc the intellectual development of Christian truth. Thus the Corinthians boasted of their gnosis, because they had learned many conclusions deduced from Christian truth which had not yet become clear to others who were too much entangled in their former stand-point. And Paul does not deny that they were before many in point of knowledge; only he missed in them that humility and love, without which, all knowledge in reference to divine things is worthless. He joins together in 1 Cor. xiii. 2, "understanding all mysteries and having all knowledge." But the idea of copía might seem to be referrible to the intellect. Aristotle makes the distinction between σοφία and φρόνησις, that the former refers to the eternal and divine, but the latter to the useful for man. But the contrast here made by that great teacher, closely depends, with his whole mode of contemplation, on the relation of the Divine to the human, and on the boundaries of morals. In common language, certainly the distinction between the ideas oopòs and ppóviμos often vanishes, and the former term is used to designate any knowledge or skill in the department of practice.

"In the First Epistle to the Corinthians Paul distinguishes by the name of "the wisdom of the perfect" a more profound development of Christian truth, by means of which it is shown that what natural reason represents as foolishness, contains in it inexhaustible treasures of wisdom. But the same Paul also uses the word oopia in cases which relate altogether to the practical, and where it corresponds rather to prudence. Both senses meet in the idea of Christian wisdom, of which we shall speak in the chapter on doctrine.

"If we revert to the peculiar idea of wisdom, and endeavour to investigate what Paul designates "the wisdom of the perfect," shall we not obtain an accommodation between the theoretical and the practical, by which copía is distinguished from yvwois? The idea of wisdom bespeaks an objectforming activity of the mind, and hence refers to those acts by which the ideas originating within are brought forth into

outward visibility. As, according to Paul, the highest object of creation in reference to this world can only be attained by the redemption of mankind, so the Divine wisdom reveals itself especially in the manner in which this is effected, and the various generations of men are brought to a participation in redemption, by the various stages in the course of development under the Divine guidance which brings all things to the same end. (Rom. xi. 33; Eph. iii. 10.) Thus the wisdom of the perfect has for its functions and object, to produce the conviction that in the relation which the development of humanity bears to the appearance of Christ, and to the redemption accomplished through his sufferings, the Divine wisdom reveals itself, and hence that preaching which appears as foolishness to those who are without the pale of Christianity, gives the most abundant disclosures of the Divine wisdom and that in the unveiling of that hidden design of redemption all the treasures of wisdom are contained. With this idea what is represented in the Epistle to the Hebrews as the doctrine of perfection, may be placed in connexion. And thus the λόγος σοφίας may be applied to a special department of knowledge distinguished from the general idea of gnosis. But the wisdom that guides human life and determines human action must form itself according to the doctrine of Divine wisdom; the new mode of treating all the relations of life proceeds from that which 'the wisdom of the perfect' teaches us to recognise as the central point for the whole moral formation of life; so therefore, the ethical element, the more practical, in distinction from the more theoretical gnosis, would here find its point of connexion."

P. 162, 1. 33, note, for "longing for," read "attaining." P. 163, l. 16, "Hades," add note, "See the Shepherd of Hermas, iii. ch. 15. Fabricii cod. Apocryph. p. iii. p. 1009. [lib. iii. simil. ix. p. 428, ed. Hefele. Tub. 1847. karéßnoav οὖν μετ ̓ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ πάλιν ἀνέβησαν.]”

P. 164, l. 15, after "weight," begin a new paragraph thus: "Even if in 1 Cor. xv. 29, a substitutionary baptism for the dead is intended, as indeed appears to be the most natural interpretation, yet this could not be made use of, by way of analogy, to support the existence of infant-baptism. For if the interpretation alluded to be correct, yet we cannot so understand it, as if the Christians imagined that their