of the Divine sanction of the gospel preached by him, that he considers himself justified in anathematising any man,' yea even an angel from heaven,' who might preach any other gospel' than that which he proclaimed.1

Whatever the Apostles at Jerusalem might know and think of the principles of Paul's gospel, they did not wish to see it promulgated in Palestine, or they had not the power to allow it. They acquiesced in Paul's preaching 'the gospel of uncircumcision' among the Gentiles on condition that he would remember the poor.' Probably they had agreed between themselves and the rulers of the Jewish church to insist on the continued validity of the deeds commanded by the law, and especially to make circumcision the test of Messianic community. No other compromise was possible between the parties, since Paul insisted on the abrogation of the whole law, and regarded circumcision not only as unnecessary but even as fatal for the true Christian.2

Very soon after this conference at Jerusalem a scene occurred between Peter and Paul at Antioch which shows that on this occasion, at least, Peter and some of his brother apostles, or their representatives, 'carried away' some of the adherents of Paul. Whether or not the Apostles were among the number of those to whom Paul did not give way by subjection at Jerusalem, on this occasion he distinctly declares that he withstood Peter to the face. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.'3 James, the superior of the Apostles at Jerusalem, perceived at once that this was a dangerous practice, and one which might undermine their position at Jerusalem, dependant as this was on the goodwill of the rulers of the Jewish church. By not confining his mission to those of the circumcision, and by not living after the manner of the Jews, Peter was 3 Gal. ii. 11, 12.

1 Gal. i. 8.

2 Gal. v. 2.

V.

V.

CHAP. following the example of Paul. James therefore sent a deputation to Peter, the members of which prevailed upon him to desist from such conduct. Fearing them which were of the circumcision,' he yielded and succeeded in drawing Barnabas after him. This conduct of Peter and of the other Jews,' Paul stigmatises as a dissembling one, from which we must draw the inference that Peter was prepared already at that time to preach the Gospel of Paul as the secret preaching of Christ, but that his connexion with his colleagues at Jerusalem prevented him from doing so. All the more gratifying is it to know, that in later years Peter and Paul harmoniously cooperated in the preaching of the Lord's gospel at Rome. It is probable that both suffered martyrdom in that city during the Neronic persecution.

It may be surmised that the necessity of combining all efforts for the purpose of combating the gnostic or rather docetic heresies, accelerated this harmonious cooperation, which may have been extended to all the then living Apostles at Jerusalem. We have tried to show that the latter Epistles of Paul, particularly those to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians, seem to be best explained by the assumption that already during his lifetime the Apostle had to contend against such who more or less openly denied the reality of Christ's humanity. He had clearly stated that according to the flesh' Christ was made of the seed of David,' and that according to the spirit of holiness,' he was by the resurrection declared to be the Son of God with power.' But teachers of 'a science falsely so called' seem at that early period to have protested against these supposed humanising tendencies of the Apostle. Even the preaching of Apollos, as probably contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and wrongly interpreted, as the Simonians would interpret it, may on this ground have caused a party in the Corinthian church to separate from that called after Paul. The Apostle re

1 It is worthy of remark that no cognisance is taken of this scene in the 2 Rom. i. 3, 4.

Acts.

V.

proves the Corinthians that they do not all speak the CHAP. same thing,' and distinctly shows this to be the cause of the divisions among them. Such false teachers, to whom the humanity, and therefore the cross of Christ, was a stumbling-block, might agree with Paul that under existing circumstances, what was proclaimed by the Apostles at Jerusalem as the primitive doctrine of Christ must be left behind, and that the more perfect doctrine by him secretly taught on earth must be openly promulgated. But as disciples of Philo, they would object to the application of the apocryphal doctrine to any, even to the most perfect, the anointed Son of Man. They could never agree with Paul that the Divine nature of one 'made of the seed of David,' according to the flesh, was identical with the Divine Spirit, Wisdom or Word of God, which was in the beginning with God, and was God. According to them Christianity was the apocryphal gnosis, the Hidden Wisdom, more fully developed than it had been in the pre-Christian period; but it was not that Hidden Wisdom as applied to the Man Jesus of Nazareth in accordance with His secret doctrine.

With regard to Paul's Messianic expectations, we have tried to show, that although he believed in the Messianic future of Israel in the flesh, and though once he believed in a Messiah in the flesh,' yet that he will do so no more. For the same Jesus who was 'made of the seed of David,' and crucified through weakness,' has been raised a spiritual body, and 'liveth by the power of God.' Paul believed that Jesus was a perfect human advocate of that anointing spirit which was in paradise and in the desert, and that the same Jesus who had come as the Messiah in the flesh, would as the Messiah in the spirit come again in those days, and fulfil all Messianic prophecies. This erroneous expectation seems, in the absence of an authentic record of Christ's secret doctrine, to have led to the ingrafting of similar expectations on the original records of his public sayings. Paul did not preach about another' advocate or comforter.

CHAP.

tion.

VI.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'-John i. 1.

We have attempted to establish that all the leading principles of the gospel revealed to Paul are similar to if not Introduc- identical with those contained in the apocryphal writings of the Septuagint; and that these Scriptures are the authentic exponents of those principles of secret tradition, of which the most important had been accepted by the reformed party of the Jewish community during the Babylonian captivity.

We hope to have succeeded in showing that what Paul openly proclaimed, Christ had with few exceptions, and in a less enlarged and more hidden form, taught in secret and in darkness to his disciples; that the Apostle Matthew did not record any of those sayings of the Lord which he had uttered in secret; that none of the Apostles at Jerusalem have at first referred to the secret or apocryphal teaching of their Master, being obliged by the Pharisees to abstain from so doing; and that it was Paul who first proclaimed the same on the housetops, by his gospel. The latter he calls another, and yet not another; expressions which are easily explained, if the Hidden Wisdom of Paul was the hidden doctrine of Christ, which the few who were ac

quainted with it did not at once promulgate. We tried further to explain from this apocryphal point of view the separation of the party of Paul in the Corinthian church from the party of Christ, that is from those who only believed what Christ had openly said according to Matthew's procrastinated record. We likewise thus tried to explain the separation of Paul's party from the party of Peter, although the latter Apostle had somewhat approached the Paulinic doctrine, and seems to have been from the outset more in favour of admitting the Gentiles than the other Apostles were.

Now, it is a fact that, from one motive or other, the party of Apollos in the Corinthian church separated itself from the party of Paul. It is customary to assume that the cause of this separation could not have been a doctrinal one. But this assumption falls to the ground, if it be probable that Paul's party in that same church separated from the parties of Christ and of Peter in consequence of dogmatical differences, which arose from the secret doctrine of the Lord not being generally promulgated; and from this it would follow that the separation of the party of Apollos from that of Paul may have had a similar cause.

Before we inquire whether the probable authorship of this Epistle, and partly even its contents, do not support this view, we must refer to a striking circumstance which seems in the outset to render the same a correct one. The so-called Muratorian list of the books forming the N. T. was probably written by a Roman, and certainly dates from the latter part of the second century, since the episcopacy of Pius the Roman, who died about the year 157, is referred to as having occurred in those days. According to this venerable record there existed in the second century two Epistles, which although they bore the name of Paul, were 'invented after the heresy of Marcion and of several others, which cannot be received in the Catholic church; for it is not seemly to mix gall with honey.' One of these Epistles was addressed to the Alexandrians.' We shall now try to establish the

CHAP.

VI.