Saint  Paul

                                       I. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

                     A.  Apocryphal Acts of Saint Paul

                     Professor Schmidt has published a photographic copy, a transcription, a German
                     translation, and a commentary of a Coptic papyrus composed of about 2000
                     fragments, which he has classified, juxtaposed, and deciphered at a cost of
                     infinite labour ("Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift
                     Nr. 1", Leipzig, 1904, and "Zusatze" etc., Leipzig, 1905). Most critics, whether
                     Catholic (Duchesne, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard etc.), or Protestant (Zahn, Harnack,
                     Corssen etc.), believe that these are real "Acta Pauli", although the text edited
                     by Schmidt, with its very numerous gaps, represents but a small portion of the
                     original work. This discovery modified the generally accepted ideas concerning
                     the origin, contents, and value of these apocryphal Acts, and warrants the
                     conclusion that three ancient compositions which have reached us formed an
                     integral part of the "Acta Pauli" viz. the "Acta Pauli et Theclae", of which the best
                     edition is that of Lipsius, ("Acta Apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, 1891, 235-72),
                     a "Martyrium Pauli" preserved in Greek and a fragment of which also exists in
                     Latin (op.. cit., 104-17), and a letter from the Corinthians to Paul with the latter's
                     reply, the Armenian text of which was preserved (cf. Zahn, "Gesch. des neutest.
                     Kanons", II, 592-611), and the Latin discovered by Berger in 1891 (d. Harnack,
                     "Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther", Bonn,
                     1905). With great sagacity Zahn anticipated this result with regard to the last two
                     documents, and the manner in which St. Jerome speaks of the periodoi Pauli et
                     Theclae (De viris ill., vii) might have permitted the same surmise with regard to
                     the first.

                     Another consequence of Schmidt's discovery is no less interesting. Lipsius
                     maintained -- and this was hitherto the common opinion -- that besides the
                     Catholic "Acts" there formerly existed Gnostic "Acts of Paul", but now everything
                     tends to prove that the latter never existed. In fact Origen quotes the "Acta Pauli"
                     twice as an estimable writing ("In Joann.", xx, 12; "De princip.", II, i, 3); Eusebius
                     (Hist. eccl., III, iii, 5; XXV, 4) places them among the books in dispute, such as
                     the "Shepherd" of Hermas, the "Apocalypse of Peter", the "Epistle of Barnabas",
                     and the "Teaching of the Apostles". The stichometry of the "Codex
                     Claromontanus" (photograph in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible", II, 147) places
                     them after the canonical books. Tertullian and St. Jerome, while pointing out the
                     legendary character of this writing, do not attack its orthodoxy. The precise
                     purpose of St. Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians which formed part of
                     the "Acts", was to oppose the Gnostics, Simon and Cleobius. But there is no
                     reason to admit the existence of heretical "Acts" which have since been
                     hopelessly lost, for all the details given by ancient authors are verified in the
                     "Acts" which have been recovered or tally well with them. The following is the
                     explanation of the confusion: The Manicheans and Priscillianists had circulated a
                     collection of five apocryphal "Acts", four of which were tainted with heresy, and
                     the fifth were the "Acts of Paul". The "Acta Pauli" owing to this unfortunate
                     association are suspected of heterodoxy by the more recent authors such as
                     Philastrius (De haeres., 88) and Photius (Cod., 114). Tertullian (De baptismo, 17)
                     and St. Jerome (De vir. ill., vii) denounce the fabulous character of the apocryphal
                     "Acts" of Paul, and this severe judgment is amply confirmed by the examination
                     of the fragments published by Schmidt. It is a purely imaginative work in which
                     improbability vies with absurdity. The author, who was acquainted with the
                     canonical Acts of the Apostles, locates the scene in the places really visited by
                     St. Paul (Antioch, Iconium, Myra, Perge, Sidon, Tyre, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi,
                     Rome), but for the rest he gives his fancy free rein. His chronology is absolutely
                     impossible. Of the sixty-five persons he names, very few are known and the part
                     played by these is irreconcilable with the statements of the canonical "Acts".
                     Briefly, if the canonical "Acts" are true the apocryphal "Acts" are false. This,
                     however, does not imply that none of the details have historical foundation, but
                     they must be confirmed by an independent authority.

                     B. Chronology

                     If we admit according to the almost unanimous opinion of exegetes that Acts, xv,
                     and Gal., ii, 1-10, relate to the same fact it will be seen that an interval of
                     seventeen years-or at least sixteen, counting incomplete years as
                     accomplished-elapsed between the conversion of Paul and the Apostolic council,
                     for Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal., i, 18) and
                     returned after fourteen years for the meeting held with regard to legal
                     observances (Gal., ii, 1: "Epeita dia dekatessaron eton"). It is true that some
                     authors include the three years prior to the first visit in the total of fourteen, but
                     this explanation seems forced. On the other hand, twelve or thirteen years
                     elapsed between the Apostolic council and the end of the captivity, for the
                     captivity lasted nearly five years (more than two years at Caesarea, Acts, xxiv,
                     27, six months travelling, including the sojourn at Malta, and two years at Rome,
                     Acts, xxviii, 30); the third mission lasted not less than four years and a half
                     (three of which were spent at Ephesus, Acts, xx, 31, and one between the
                     departure from Ephesus and the arrival at Jerusalem, I Cor., xvi, 8; Acts, xx, 16,
                     and six months at the very least for the journey to Galatia, Acts, xviii, 23); while
                     the second mission lasted not less than three years (eighteen months for
                     Corinth, Acts, xviii, 11, and the remainder for the evangelization of Galatia,
                     Macedonia, and Athens, Acts, xv, 36-xvii, 34). Thus from the conversion to the
                     end of the first captivity we have a total of about twenty-nine years. Now if we
                     could find a fixed point that is a synchronism between a fact in the life of Paul
                     and a certainly dated event in profane history, it would be easy to reconstruct the
                     Pauline chronology. Unfortunately this much wished-for mark has not yet been
                     indicated with certainty, despite the numerous attempts made by scholars,
                     especially in recent times. It is of interest to note even the abortive attempts,
                     because the discovery of an inscription or of a coin may any day transform an
                     approximate date into an absolutely fixed point. These are the meeting of Paul
                     with Sergius Paulus, Proconsul of Cyprus, about the year 46 (Acts, xiii, 7), the
                     meeting at Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla, who had been expelled from Rome,
                     about 51 (Acts, xviii, 2), the meeting with Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia, about 53
                     (Acts, xviii, 12), the address of Paul before the Governor Felix and his wife
                     Drusilla about 58 (Acts, xxiv, 24). All these events, as far as they may be
                     assigned approximate dates, agree with the Apostle's general chronology but
                     give no precise results. Three synchronisms, however, appear to afford a firmer

                     (1) The occupation of Damascus by the ethnarch of King Aretas and the escape
                     of the Apostle three years after his conversion (II Cor., xi, 32-33; Acts, ix, 23-26).
                     -- Damascene coins bearing the effigy of Tiberius to the year 34 are extant,
                     proving that at that time the city belonged to the Romans. It is impossible to
                     assume that Aretas had received it as a gift from Tiberius, for the latter,
                     especially in his last years, was hostile to the King of the Nabataeans whom
                     Vitellius, Governor of Syria, was ordered to attack (Joseph., "Ant.", XVIII, v, 13);
                     neither could Aretas have possessed himself of it by force for, besides the
                     unlikelihood of a direct aggression against the Romans, the expedition of
                     Vitellius was at first directed not against Damascus but against Petra. It has
                     therefore been somewhat plausibly conjectured that Caligula, subject as he was
                     to such whims, had ceded it to him at the time of his accession (10 March, 37).
                     As a matter of fact nothing is known of imperial coins of Damascus dating from
                     either Caligula or Claudius. According to this hypothesis St. Paul's conversion
                     was not prior to 34, nor his escape from Damascus and his first visit to
                     Jerusalem, to 37.

                     (2) Death of Agrippa, famine in Judea, mission of Paul and Barnabas to
                     Jerusalem to bring thither the alms from the Church of Antioch (Acts, xi, 27 -- xii,
                     25). -- Agrippa died shortly after the Pasch (Acts, xii, 3, 19), when he was
                     celebrating in Caesarea solemn festivals in honour of Claudius's recent return
                     from Britain, in the third year of his reign, which had begun in 41(Josephus,
                     "Ant.", XIX, vii, 2). These combined facts bring us to the year 44, and it is
                     precisely in this year that Orosius (Hist., vii, 6) places the great famine which
                     desolated Judea. Josephus mentions it somewhat later, under the procurator
                     Tiberius Alexander (about 46), but it is well known that the whole of Claudius's
                     reign was characterized by poor harvests (Suet., "Claudius", 18) and a general
                     famine was usually preceded by a more or less prolonged period of scarcity. It is
                     also possible that the relief sent in anticipation of the famine foretold by Agabus
                     (Acts, xi, 28, 29) preceded the appearance of the scourge or coincided with the
                     first symptoms of want. On the other hand, the synchronism between the death
                     of Herod and the mission of Paul can only be approximate, for although the two
                     facts are closely connected in the Acts, the account of the death of Agrippa may
                     be a mere episode intended to shed light on the situation of the Church of
                     Jerusalem about the time of the arrival of the delegates from Antioch. In any
                     case, 45 seems to be the most satisfactory date.

                     (3) Replacing of Felix by Festus two years after the arrest to Paul (Acts, xxiv,
                     27). -- Until recently chronologists commonly fixed this important event, in the
                     year 60-61. Harnack, 0. Holtzmann, and McGiffert suggest advancing it four or
                     five years for the following reasons: (1) In his "Chronicon", Eusebius places the
                     arrival of Festus in the second year of Nero (October, 55-October, 56, or if, as is
                     asserted, Eusebius makes the reigns of the emperors begin with the September
                     after their accession, September, 56-September, 57). But it must be borne in
                     mind that the chroniclers being always obliged to give definite dates, were likely
                     to guess at them, and it may be that Eusebius for lack of definite information
                     divided into two equal parts the entire duration of the government of Felix and
                     Festus. (2) Josephus states (Ant., XX, viii, 9) that Felix having been recalled to
                     Rome and accused by the Jews to Nero, owed his safety only to his brother
                     Pallas who was then high in favour. But according to Tacitus (Annal., XIII, xiv-xv),
                     Palles was dismissed shortly before Britannicus celebrated his fourteenth
                     anniversary, that is, in January, 55. These two statements are irreconcilable; for if
                     Pallas was dismissed three months after Nero's accession (13 October, 54) he
                     could not have been at the summit of his power when his brother Felix, recalled
                     from Palestine at the command of Nero about the time of Pentecost, arrived at
                     Rome. Possibly Pallas, who after his dismissal retained his wealth and a portion
                     of his influence, since he stipulated that his administration should not be
                     subjected to an investigation, was able to be of assistance to his brother until 62
                     when Nero, to obtain possession of his goods, Nero had him poisoned.

                     The advocates of a later date bring forward the following reasons: (1) Two years
                     before the recall of Felix, Paul reminded him that he had been for many years
                     judge over the Jewish nation (Acts, xxiv, 10-27). This can scarcely mean less
                     than six or seven years, and as, according to Josephus who agrees with Tacitus,
                     Felix was named procurator of Judea in 52, the beginning of the captivity would
                     fall in 58 or 59. It is true that the argument loses its strength if it be admitted with
                     several critics that Felix before being procurator had held a subordinate position
                     in Palestine. (2) Josephus (Ant., XX, viii, 5-8) places under Nero everything that
                     pertains to the government of Felix, and although this long series of events does
                     not necessarily require many years it is evident that Josephus regarded the
                     government of Felix as coinciding for the most part with the reign of Nero, which
                     began on 13 October, 54. In fixing as follows the chief dates in the life of Paul all
                     certain or probable data seem to be satisfactorily taken into account: Conversion,
                     35; first visit to Jerusalem, 37; sojourn at Tarsus, 37-43; apostolate at Antioch,
                     43-44; second visit to Jerusalem, 44 or 45; first mission, 45-49; third visit to
                     Jerusalem, 49 or 50; second mission, 50-53; (I and II Thessalonians), 52; fourth
                     visit to Jerusalem, 53; third mission, 53-57; (I and II Corinthians; Galatians), 56;
                     (Romans), 57; fifth visit to Jerusalem, arrest, 57; arrival of Festus, departure for
                     Rome, 59; captivity at Rome, 60-62; (Philemon; Colossians; Ephesians;
                     Philippians), 61; second period of activity, 62-66; (I Timothy; Titus), second
                     arrest, 66; (II Timothy), martyrdom, 67. (See Turner, "Chronology of the N. T." in
                     Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible" Hönicke, "Die Chronologie des Lebens des Ap.
                     Paulus", Leipzig, 1903.

                                       II. LIFE AND WORK OF PAUL

                     A. Birth and Education

                     From St. Paul himself we know that he was born at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts, xxi,
                     39), of a father who was a Roman citizen (Acts, xxii, 26-28; cf. xvi, 37), of a
                     family in which piety was hereditary (II Tim., i, 3) and which was much attached
                     to Pharisaic traditions and observances (Phil., iii, 5-6). St. Jerome relates, on
                     what ground is not known, that his parents were natives of Gischala, a small
                     town of Galilee and that they brought him to Tarsus when Gischala was captured
                     by the Romans ("De vir. ill.", v; "In epist. ad Phil.", 23). This last detail is
                     certainly an anachronism, but the Galilean origin of the family is not at all
                     improbable. As he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin he was given at the time of
                     his circumcision the name of Saul, which must have been common in that tribe
                     in memory of the first king of the Jews (Phil., iii, 5). As a Roman citizen he also
                     bore the Latin name of Paul. It was quite usual for the Jews of that time to have
                     two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek, between which there was
                     often a certain assonance and which were joined together exactly in the manner
                     made use of by St. Luke (Acts, xiii, 9: Saulos ho kai Paulos). See on this point
                     Deissmann, "Bible Studies" (Edinburgh, 1903, 313-17.) It was natural that in
                     inaugurating his apostolate among the Gentiles Paul should have adopted his
                     Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek.
                     As every respectable Jew had to teach his son a trade, young Saul learned how
                     to make tents (Acts, xviii, 3) or rather to make the mohair of which tents were
                     made (cf. Lewin, "Life of St. Paul", I, London, 1874, 8-9). He was still very young
                     when sent to Jerusalem to receive his education at the school of Gamaliel (Acts,
                     xxii, 3). Possibly some of his family resided in the holy city; later there is
                     mention of the presence of one of his sisters whose son saved his life (Acts,
                     xxiii, 16). From that time it is absolutely impossible to follow him until he takes
                     an active part in the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts, vii, 58-60; xxii, 20). He was
                     then qualified as a young man (neanias), but this was very elastic appellation and
                     might be applied to a man between twenty and forty.

                     B. Conversion and early Labours

                     We read in the Acts of the Apostles three accounts of the conversion of St. Paul
                     (ix, 1-19; xxii, 3-21; xxvi, 9-23) presenting some slight differences, which it is not
                     difficult to harmonize and which do not affect the basis of the narrative, which is
                     perfectly identical in substance. See J. Massie, "The Conversion of St. Paul" in
                     "The Expositor", 3rd series, X, 1889, 241-62. Sabatier agreeing with most
                     independent critics, has well said (L'Apotre Paul, 1896, 42): These differences
                     cannot in any way alter the reality of the fact; their bearing on the narrative is
                     extremely remote; they do not deal even with the circumstances accompanying
                     the miracle but with the subjective impressions which the companions of St. Paul
                     received of these circumstances. . . . To base a denial of the historical character
                     of the account upon these differences would seem therefore a violent and
                     arbitrary proceeding." All efforts hitherto made to explain without a miracle the
                     apparition of Jesus to Paul have failed. Naturalistic explanations are reduced to
                     two: either Paul believed that he really saw Christ, but was the victim of an
                     hallucination, or he believed that he saw Him only through a spiritual vision,
                     which tradition, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, later erroneously
                     materialized. Renan explained everything by hallucination due to disease brought
                     on by a combination of moral causes such as doubt, remorse, fear, and of
                     physical causes such as ophthalmia, fatigue, fever, the sudden transition from
                     the torrid desert to the fresh gardens of Damascus, perhaps a sudden storm
                     accompanied by lightning and thunder. All this combined, according to Renan's
                     theory, to produce a cerebral commotion, a passing delirium which Paul took in
                     good faith for an apparition of the risen Christ.

                     The other partisans of a natural explanation while avoiding the word hallucination,
                     eventually fall back on the system of Renan which they merely endeavour to
                     render a little less complicated. Thus Holsten, for whom the vision of Christ is
                     only the conclusion of a series of syllogisms by which Paul persuaded himself
                     that Christ was truly risen. So also Pfleiderer, who however, causes the
                     imagination to play a more influential part: "An excitable, nervous temperament;
                     a soul that had been violently agitated and torn by the most terrible doubts; a
                     most vivid phantasy, occupied with the awful scenes of persecution on the one
                     hand and on the other by the ideal image of the celestial Christ; in addition the
                     nearness of Damascus with the urgency of a decision, the lonely stillness, the
                     scorching and blinding heat of the desert -- in fact everything combined to
                     produce one of those ecstatic states in which the soul believes that it sees those
                     images and conceptions which violently agitate it as if they were phenomena
                     proceeding from the outward world" (Lectures on the influence of the Apostle
                     Paul on the development of Christianity, 1897, 43). We have quoted Pfleiderer's
                     words at length because his "psychological" explanation is considered the best
                     ever devised. It will readily be seen that it is insufficient and as much opposed to
                     the account in the Acts as to the express testimony of St. Paul himself. (1) Paul
                     is certain of having "seen" Christ as did the other Apostles (I Cor., ix, 1); he
                     declares that Christ "appeared" to him (I Cor., xv, 8) as He appeared to Peter, to
                     James, to the Twelve, after His Resurrection. (2) He knows that his conversion is
                     not the fruit of his reasoning or thoughts, but an unforeseen, sudden, startling
                     change, due to all-powerful grace (Gal., i, 12-15; I Cor., xv, 10). (3) He is wrongly
                     credited with doubts, perplexities, fears, remorse, before his conversion. He was
                     halted by Christ when his fury was at its height (Acts, ix, 1-2); it was "through
                     zeal" that he persecuted the Church (Phil., iii, 6), and he obtained mercy
                     because he had acted "ignorantly in unbelief" (I Tim., i, 13). All explanations,
                     psychological or otherwise, are worthless in face of these definite assertions, for
                     all suppose that it was Paul's faith in Christ which engendered the vision,
                     whereas according to the concordant testimony of the Acts and the Epistles it
                     was the actual vision of Christ which engendered faith.

                     After his conversion, his baptism, and his miraculous cure Paul set about
                     preaching to the Jews (Acts, ix, 19-20). He afterwards withdrew to Arabia --
                     probably to the region south of Damascus (Gal., i 17), doubtless less to preach
                     than to meditate on the Scriptures. On his return to Damascus the intrigues of
                     the Jews forced him to flee by night (II Cor., xi, 32-33; Acts, ix, 23-25). He went
                     to Jerusalem to see Peter (Gal., i, 18), but remained only fifteen days, for the
                     snares of the Greeks threatened his life. He then left for Tarsus and is lost to
                     sight for five or six years (Acts, ix, 29-30; Gal., i, 21). Barnabas went in search of
                     him and brought him to Antioch where for a year they worked together and their
                     apostolate was most fruitful (Acts, xi, 25-26). Together also they were sent to
                     Jerusalem to carry alms to the brethren on the occasion of the famine predicted
                     by Agabus (Acts, xi, 27-30). They do not seem to have found the Apostles there;
                     these had been scattered by the persecution of Herod.

                     C. Apostolic Career of Paul

                     This period of twelve years (45-57) was the most active and fruitful of his life. It
                     comprises three great Apostolic expeditions of which Antioch was in each
                     instance the starting-point and which invariably ended in a visit to Jerusalem.

                     (1) First mission (Acts, xiii, 1-xiv, 27)

                     Set apart by command of the Holy Ghost for the special evangelization of the
                     Gentiles, Barnabas and Saul embark for Cyprus, preach in the synagogue of
                     Salamina, cross the island from east to west doubtless following the southern
                     coast, and reach Paphos, the residence of the proconsul Sergius Paulus, where
                     a sudden change takes place. After the conversion of the Roman proconsul,
                     Saul, suddenly become Paul, is invariably mentioned before Barnabas by St.
                     Luke and manifestly assumes the leadership of the mission which Barnabas has
                     hitherto directed. The results of this change are soon evident. Paul, doubtless
                     concluding that Cyprus, the natural dependency of Syria and Cilicia, would
                     embrace the faith of Christ when these two countries should be Christian, chose
                     Asia Minor as the field of his apostolate and sailed for Perge in Pamphylia,
                     eighth miles above the mouth of the Cestrus. It was then that John Mark, cousin
                     of Barnabas, dismayed perhaps by the daring projects of the Apostle, abandoned
                     the expedition and returned to Jerusalem, while Paul and Barnabas laboured
                     alone among the rough mountains of Pisidia, which were infested by brigands
                     and crossed by frightful precipices. Their destination was the Roman colony of
                     Antioch, situated a seven day's journey from Perge. Here Paul spoke on the
                     vocation of Israel and the providential sending of the Messias, a discourse which
                     St. Luke reproduces in substance as an example of his preaching in the
                     synagogues (Acts, xiii, 16-41). The sojourn of the two missionaries in Antioch
                     was long enough for the word of the Lord to be published throughout the whole
                     country (Acts, xiii, 49). When by their intrigues the Jews had obtained against
                     them a decree of banishment, they went to Iconium, three or four days distant,
                     where they met with the same persecution from the Jews and the same eager
                     welcome from the Gentiles. The hostility of the Jews forced them to take refuge
                     in the Roman colony of Lystra, eighteen miles distant. Here the Jews from
                     Antioch and Iconium laid snares for Paul and having stoned him left him for dead,
                     but again he succeeded in escaping and this time sought refuge in Derbe,
                     situated about forty miles away on the frontier of the Province of Galatia. Their
                     circuit completed, the missionaries retraced their steps in order to visit their
                     neophytes, ordained priests in each Church founded by them at such great cost,
                     and thus reached Perge where they halted to preach the Gospel, perhaps while
                     awaiting an opportunity to embark for Attalia, a port twelve miles distant. On their
                     return to Antioch in Syria after an absence of at least three years, they were
                     received with transports of joy and thanksgiving, for God had opened the door of
                     faith to the Gentiles.

                     The problem of the status of the Gentiles in the Church now made itself felt with
                     all its acuteness. Some Judeo-Christians coming down from Jerusalem claimed
                     that the Gentiles must be submitted to circumcision and treated as the Jews
                     treated proselytes. Against this Paul and Barnabas protested and it was decided
                     that a meeting should be held at Jerusalem in order to solve the question. At this
                     assembly Paul and Barnabas represented the community of Antioch. Peter
                     pleaded the freedom of the Gentiles; James upheld him, at the same time
                     demanding that the Gentiles should abstain from certain things which especially
                     shocked the Jews. It was decided, first, that the Gentiles were exempt from the
                     Mosaic law. Secondly, that those of Syria and Cilicia must abstain from things
                     sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.
                     Thirdly, that this injunction was laid upon them, not in virtue of the Mosaic law,
                     but in the name of the Holy Ghost. This meant the complete triumph of Paul's
                     ideas. The restriction imposed on the Gentile converts of Syria and Cilicia did not
                     concern his Churches, and Titus, his companion, was not compelled to be
                     circumcised, despite the loud protests of the Judaizers (Gal., ii, 3-4). Here it is to
                     be assumed that Gal., ii, and Acts, xv, relate to the same fact, for the actors are
                     the same, Paul and Barnabas on the one hand, Peter and James on the other;
                     the discussion is the same, the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles; the
                     scenes are the same, Antioch and Jerusalem; the date is the same, about A. D.
                     50; and the result is the same, Paul's victory over the Judaizers. However, the
                     decision of Jerusalem did not do away with all difficulties. The question did not
                     concern only the Gentiles, and while exempting them from the Mosaic law, it
                     was not declared that it would not have been counted meritorious and more
                     perfect for them to observe it, as the decree seemed to liken them to Jewish
                     proselytes of the second class. Furthermore the Judeo-Christians, not having
                     been included in the verdict, were still free to consider themselves bound to the
                     observance of the law. This was the origin of the dispute which shortly afterwards
                     arose at Antioch between Peter and Paul. The latter taught openly that the law
                     was abolished for the Jews themselves. Peter did not think otherwise, but he
                     considered it wise to avoid giving offence to the Judaizers and to refrain from
                     eating with the Gentiles who did not observe all the prescriptions of the law. As
                     he thus morally influenced the Gentiles to live as the Jews did, Paul
                     demonstrated to him that this dissimulation or opportuneness prepared the way
                     for future misunderstandings and conflicts and even then had regrettable
                     consequences. His manner of relating this incident leaves no room for doubt that
                     Peter was persuaded by his arguments (Gal., ii, 11-20).

                     (2) Second mission (Acts, xv, 36-xviii, 22)

                     The beginning of the second mission was marked by a rather sharp discussion
                     concerning Mark, whom St. Paul this time refused to accept as travelling
                     companion. Consequently Barnabas set out with Mark for Cyprus and Paul
                     chose Silas or Silvanus, a Roman citizen like himself, and an influential member
                     of the Church of Jerusalem, and sent by it to Antioch to deliver the decrees of the
                     Apostolic council. The two missionaries first went from Antioch to Tarsus,
                     stopping on the way in order to promulgate the decisions of the Council of
                     Jerusalem; then they went from Tarsus to Derbe, through the Cilician Gates, the
                     defiles of Tarsus, and the plains of Lycaonia. The visitation of the Churches
                     founded during his first mission passed without notable incidents except the
                     choice of Timothy, whom the Apostle while in Lystra persuaded to accompany
                     him, and whom he caused to be circumcised in order to facilitate his access to
                     the Jews who were numerous in those places. It was probably at Antioch of
                     Pisidia, although the Acts do not mention that city, that the itinerary of the
                     mission was altered by the intervention of the Holy Ghost. Paul thought to enter
                     the Province of Asia by the valley of Meander which separated it by only three
                     day's journey, but they passed through Phrygia and the country of Galatia,
                     having been forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word of God in Asia
                     (Acts, xvi, 6). These words (ten phrygian kai Galatiken choran) are variously
                     interpreted, according as we take them to mean the Galatians of the north or of
                     the south (see GALATIANS). Whatever the hypothesis, the missionaries had to
                     travel northwards in that portion of Galatia properly so called of which Pessinonte
                     was the capital, and the only question is as to whether or not they preached
                     there. They did not intend to do so, but as is known the evangelization of the
                     Galatians was due to an accident, namely the illness of Paul (Gal., iv, 13); this
                     fits very well for Galatians in the north. In any case the missionaries having
                     reached the Upper part of Mysia (kata Mysian), attempted to enter the rich
                     Province of Bithynia, which lay before them, but the Holy Ghost prevented them
                     (Acts, xvi, 7). Therefore, passing through Mysia without stopping to preach
                     (parelthontes) they reached Alexandria of Troas, where God's will was again
                     made known to them in the vision of a Macedonian who called them to come and
                     help his country (Acts, xvi, 9-10).

                     Paul continued to follow on European soil the method of preaching he had
                     employed from the beginning. As far as possible he concentrated his efforts in a
                     metropolis from which the Faith would spread to cities of second rank and to the
                     country districts. Wherever there was a synagogue he first took his stand there
                     and preached to the Jews and proselytes who would consent to listen to him.
                     When the rupture with the Jews was irreparable which always happened sooner
                     or later, he founded a new Church with his neophytes as a nucleus. He remained
                     in the same city until persecution, generally aroused by the intrigues of the Jews,
                     forced him to retire. There were, however, variations of this plan. At Philippi,
                     where there was no synagogue, the first preaching took place in the uncovered
                     oratory called the proseuche, which the Gentiles made a reason for stirring up
                     the persecution. Paul and Silas, charged with disturbing public order, were
                     beaten with rods, imprisoned, and finally exiled. But at Thessalonica and Berea,
                     whither they successively repaired after leaving Philippi, things turned out almost
                     as they had planned. The apostolate of Athens was quite exceptional. Here there
                     was no question of Jews or synagogue, Paul, contrary to his custom, was alone
                     (I Thess., iii, 1), and he delivered before the areopagus a specially framed
                     discourse, a synopsis of which has been preserved by the Acts (xvii, 23-31) as a
                     specimen of its kind. He seems to have left the city of his own accord, without
                     being forced to do so by persecution. The mission to Corinth on the other hand
                     may be considered typical. Paul preached in the synagogue every Sabbath day,
                     and when the violent opposition of the Jews denied him entrance there he
                     withdrew to an adjoining house which was the property of a proselyte named
                     Titus Justus. He carried on his apostolate in this manner for eighteen months,
                     while the Jews vainly stormed against him; he was able to withstand them owing
                     to the impartial, if not actually favourable, attitude of the proconsul, Gallio. Finally
                     he decided to go to Jerusalem in fulfillment of a vow made perhaps in a moment
                     of danger. From Jerusalem, according to his custom, he returned to Antioch. The
                     two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written during the early months of his
                     sojourn at Corinth. For occasion, circumstances, and analysis of these letters
                     see THESSALONIANS.

                     (3) Third mission (Acts, xviii, 23-xxi, 26)

                     Paul's destination in his third journey was obviously Ephesus. There Aquila and
                     Priscilla were awaiting him, he had promised the Ephesians to return and
                     evangelize them if it were the will of God (Acts, xviii, 19-21), and the Holy Ghost
                     no longer opposed his entry into Asia. Therefore, after a brief rest at Antioch he
                     went through the countries of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts, xviii, 23) and passing
                     through "the upper regions" of Central Asia he reached Ephesus (xix, 1). His
                     method remained the same. In order to earn his living and not be a burden to the
                     faithful he toiled every day for many hours at making tents, but this did not
                     prevent him from preaching the Gospel. As usual he began with the synagogue
                     where he succeeded in remaining for three months. At the end of this time he
                     taught every day in a classroom placed at his disposal by a certain Tyrannus
                     "from the fifth hour to the tenth" (from eleven in the morning till four in the
                     afternoon), according to the interesting addition of the "Codex Bezae" (Acts,
                     xix,9). This lasted two years, so that all the inhabitants of Asia, Jews and
                     Greeks, heard the word of the Lord (Acts, xix, 20).

                     Naturally there were trials to be endured and obstacles to be overcome. Some of
                     these obstacles arose from the jealousy of the Jews, who vainly endeavoured to
                     imitate Paul's exorcisms, others from the superstition of the pagans, which was
                     especially rife at Ephesus. So effectually did he triumph over it, however, that
                     books of superstition were burned to the value of 50,000 pieces of silver (each
                     piece about a day's wage). This time the persecution was due to the Gentiles
                     and inspired by a motive of self-interest. The progress of Christianity having
                     ruined the sale of the little facsimiles of the temple of Diana and statuettes of the
                     goddess, which devout pilgrims had been wont to purchase, a certain Demetrius,
                     at the head of the guild of silversmiths, stirred up the crowd against Paul. The
                     scene which then transpired in the theatre is described by St. Luke with
                     memorable vividness and pathos (Acts, xix, 23-40). The Apostle had to yield to
                     the storm. After a stay at Ephesus of two years and a half, perhaps more (Acts,
                     xx, 31: trietian), he departed for Macedonia and thence for Corinth, where he
                     spent the winter. It was his intention in the following spring to go by sea to
                     Jerusalem, doubtless for the Pasch; but learning that the Jews had planned his
                     destruction, he did not wish, by going to sea, to afford them an opportunity to
                     attempt his life. Therefore he returned by way of Macedonia. Numerous disciples
                     divided into two groups, accompanied him or awaited him at Troas. These were
                     Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe,
                     Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia, and finally Luke, the historian of the
                     Acts, who gives us minutely all the stages of the voyage: Philippi, Troas, Assos,
                     Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Miletus, Cos, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais,
                     Caesarea, Jerusalem. Three more remarkable facts should be noted in passing.
                     At Troas Paul resuscitated the young Eutychus, who had fallen from a third-story
                     window while Paul was preaching late into the night. At Miletus he pronounced
                     before the ancients of Ephesus the touching farewell discourse which drew many
                     tears (Acts, xx, 18-38). A Caesarea the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Agabus,
                     predicted his coming arrest, but did not dissuade him from going to Jerusalem.

                     St. Paul's four great Epistles were written during this third mission: the first to the
                     Corinthians from Ephesus, about the time of the Pasch prior to his departure
                     from that city; the second to the Corinthians from Macedonia, during the summer
                     or autumn of the same year; that to the Romans from Corinth, in the following
                     spring; the date of the Epistle to the Galatians is disputed. On the many
                     questions occasioned by the despatch and the language of these letters, or the
                     situation assumed either on the side of the Apostle or his correspondents, see
                     EPISTLE TO THE.

                     D. Captivity (Acts, xxi, 27-xxviii, 31)

                     Falsely accused by the Jews of having brought Gentiles into the Temple, Paul
                     was ill-treated by the populace and led in chains to the fortress Antonia by the
                     tribune Lysias. The latter having learned that the Jews had conspired
                     treacherously to slay the prisoner sent him under strong escort to Caesarea,
                     which was the residence of the procurator Felix. Paul had little difficulty in
                     confounding his accusers, but as he refused to purchase his liberty Felix kept
                     him in chains for two years and even left him in prison in order to please the
                     Jews, until the arrival of his successor, Festus. The new governor wished to send
                     the prisoner to Jerusalem there to be tried in the presence of his accusers; but
                     Paul, who was acquainted with the snares of his enemies, appealed to Caesar.
                     Thenceforth his cause could be tried only at Rome. This first period of captivity is
                     characterized by five discourses of the Apostle: The first was delivered in Hebrew
                     on the steps of the Antonia before the threatening crowd; herein Paul relates his
                     conversion and vocation to the Apostolate, but he was interrupted by the hostile
                     shouts of the multitude (Acts, xxii, 1-22). In the second, delivered the next day,
                     before the Sanhedrin assembled at the command of Lysias, the Apostle skillfully
                     embroiled the Pharisees with the Sadducees and no accusation could be
                     brought. In the third, Paul, answering his accuser Tertullus in the presence of the
                     Governor Felix, makes known the facts which had been distorted and proves his
                     innocence (Acts xxiv, 10-21). The fourth discourse is merely an explanatory
                     summary of the Christian Faith delivered before Felix and his wife Drusilla (Acts,
                     xxiv, 24-25). The fifth, pronounced before the Governor Festus, King Agrippa, and
                     his wife Berenice, again relates the history of Paul's conversion, and is left
                     unfinished owing to the sarcastic interruptions of the governor and the
                     embarrassed attitude of the king (Acts, xxvi).

                     The journey of the captive Paul from Caesarea to Rome is described by St. Luke
                     with an exactness and vividness of colours which leave nothing to be desired. For
                     commentaries see Smith, "Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul" (1866); Ramsay,
                     "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen" (London, 1908). The centurion Julius
                     had shipped Paul and his fellow-prisoners on a merchant vessel on board which
                     Luke and Aristarchus were able to take passage. As the season was advanced
                     the voyage was slow and difficult. They skirted the coasts of Syria, Cilicia, and
                     Pamphylia. At Myra in Lycia the prisoners were transferred to an Alexandrian
                     vessel bound for Italy, but the winds being persistently contrary a place in Crete
                     called Goodhavens was reached with great difficulty and Paul advised that they
                     should spend the winter there, but his advice was not followed, and the vessel
                     driven by the tempest drifted aimlessly for fourteen whole days, being finally
                     wrecked on the coast of Malta. The three months during which navigation was
                     considered most dangerous were spent there, but with the first days of spring all
                     haste was made to resume the voyage. Paul must have reached Rome some
                     time in March. "He remained two whole years in his own hired lodging . . .
                     preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord
                     Jesus Christ, with all confidence, without prohibition" (Acts, xxviii, 30-31). With
                     these words the Acts of the Apostles conclude.

                     There is no doubt that Paul's trial terminated in a sentence of acquittal, for (1) the
                     report of the Governor Festus was certainly favourable as well as that of the
                     centurion. (2) The Jews seem to have abandoned their charge since their
                     co-religionists in Rome were not informed of it (Acts, xxviii, 21). (3) The course of
                     the proceedings led Paul to hope for a release, of which he sometimes speaks
                     as of a certainty (Phil., i, 25; ii, 24; Philem., 22). (4) The pastorals if they are
                     authentic assume a period of activity for Paul subsequent to his captivity. The
                     same conclusion is drawn from the hypothesis that they are not authentic, for all
                     agree that the author was well acquainted with the life of the Apostle. It is the
                     almost unanimous opinion that the so-called Epistles of the captivity were sent
                     from Rome. Some authors have attempted to prove that St. Paul wrote them
                     during his detention at Caesarea, but they have found few to agree with them.
                     The Epistles to the Colossians, the Ephesians, and Philemon were despatched
                     together and by the same messenger, Tychicus. It is a matter of controversy
                     whether the Epistle to the Philippians was prior or subsequent to these, and the
                     question has not been answered by decisive arguments (see PHILIPPIANS,
                     TO THE; PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO).

                     E. Last Years

                     This period is wrapped in deep obscurity for, lacking the account of the Acts, we
                     have no guide save an often uncertain tradition and the brief references of the
                     Pastoral epistles. Paul had long cherished the desire to go to Spain (Rom., xv,
                     24, 28) and there is no evidence that he was led to change his plan. When
                     towards the end of his captivity he announces his coming to Philemon (22) and
                     to the Philippians (ii, 23-24), he does not seem to regard this visit as immediate
                     since he promises the Philippians to send them a messenger as soon as he
                     learns the issue of his trial; he therefore plans another journey before his return to
                     the East. Finally, not to mention the later testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St.
                     Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, the well-known text of
                     St. Clement of Rome, the witness of the "Muratorian Canon", and of the "Acta
                     Pauli" render probable Paul's journey to Spain. In any case he can not have
                     remained there long, for he was in haste to revisit his Churches in the East. He
                     may have returned from Spain through southern Gaul if it was thither, as some
                     Fathers have thought, and not to Galatia, that Crescens was sent later (II Tim.,
                     iv, 10). We may readily believe that he afterwards kept the promise made to his
                     friend Philemon and that on this occasion he visited the churches of the valley of
                     Lycus, Laodicea, Colossus, and Hierapolis.

                     The itinerary now becomes very uncertain, but the following facts seem indicated
                     by the Pastorals: Paul remained in Crete exactly long enough to found there new
                     churches, the care and organization of which he confided to his fellow-worker
                     Titus (Tit., i, 5). He then went to Ephesus, and besought Timothy, who was
                     already there, to remain until his return while he proceeded to Macedonia (I Tim.,
                     i,3). On this occasion he paid his promised visit to the Philippians (Phil., ii, 24),
                     and naturally also saw the Thessalonians. The letter to Titus and the First Epistle
                     to Timothy must date from this period; they seem to have been written about the
                     same time and shortly after the departure from Ephesus. The question is whether
                     they were sent from Macedonia or, which seems more probable, from Corinth.
                     The Apostle instructs Titus to join him at Nicopolis of Epirus where he intends to
                     spend the winter (Titus, iii, 12). In the following spring he must have carried out
                     his plan to return to Asia (I Tim, iii, 14-15). Here occurred the obscure episode of
                     his arrest, which probably took place at Troas; this would explain his having left
                     with Carpus a cloak and books which he needed (II Tim., iv, 13). He was taken
                     from there to Ephesus, capital of the Province of Asia, where he was deserted by
                     all those on whom he thought he could rely (II Tim., i, 15). Being sent to Rome
                     for trial he left Trophimus sick at Miletus, and Erastus, another of his
                     companions, remained at Corinth, for what reason is not clear (II Tim., iv, 20).
                     When Paul wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy from Rome he felt that all
                     human hope was lost (iv, 6).; he begs his disciple to rejoin him as quickly as
                     possible, for he is alone with Luke. We do not know if Timothy was able to reach
                     Rome before the death of the Apostle.

                     Ancient tradition makes it possible to establish the following points: (1) Paul
                     suffered martyrdom near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae (now Tre
                     Fontane), somewhat east of the Ostian Way, about two miles from the splendid
                     Basilica of San Paolo fuori le mura which marks his burial place. (2) The
                     martyrdom took place towards the end of the reign of Nero, in the twelfth year
                     (St. Epiphanius), the thirteenth (Euthalius), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome). (3)
                     According to the most common opinion, Paul suffered in the same year and on
                     the same day as Peter; several Latin Fathers contend that it was on the same
                     day but not in the same year; the oldest witness, St. Dionysius the Corinthian,
                     says only kata ton auton kairon, which may be translated "at the same time" or
                     "about the same time". (4) From time immemorial the solemnity of the Apostles
                     Peter and Paul has been celebrated on 29 June, which is the anniversary either
                     of their death or of the translation of their relics. Formerly the pope, after having
                     pontificated in the Basilica of St. Peter, went with his attendants to that of St.
                     Paul, but the distance between the two basilicas (about five miles) rendered the
                     double ceremony too exhausting, especially at that season of the year. Thus
                     arose the prevailing custom of transferring to the next day (30 June) the
                     Commemoration of St. Paul. The feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (25 January)
                     is of comparatively recent origin. There is reason for believing that the day was
                     first observed to mark the translation of the relics of St. Paul at Rome, for so it
                     appears in the Hieronymian Martyrology. It is unknown to the Greek Church
                     (Dowden, "The Church Year and Kalendar", Cambridge, 1910, 69; cf. Duchesne,
                     "Origines du culte chrétien", Paris, 1898, 265-72; McClure, "Christian Worship",
                     London, 1903, 277-81).

                     F. Physical and Moral Portrait of St. Paul

                     We know from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII, 18) that even in his time there existed
                     paintings representing Christ and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Paul's features
                     have been preserved in three ancient monuments: (1) A diptych which dates from
                     not later than the fourth century (Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul", 1874,
                     frontispiece of Vol. I and Vol. II, 210). (2) A large medallion found in the cemetery
                     of Domitilla, representing the Apostles Peter and Paul (Op. cit., II, 411). (3) A
                     glass dish in the British Museum, depicting the same Apostles (Farrara, "Life
                     and Work of St. Paul", 1891, 896). We have also the concordant descriptions of
                     the "Acta Pauli et Theelae", of Pseudo-Lucian in Philopatris, of Malalas
                     (Chronogr., x), and of Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., III, 37). Paul was short of stature;
                     the Pseudo-Chrysostom calls him "the man of three cubits" (anthropos
                     tripechys); he was broad-shouldered, somewhat bald, with slightly aquiline nose,
                     closely-knit eyebrows, thick, greyish beard, fair complexion, and a pleasing and
                     affable manner. He was afflicted with a malady which is difficult to diagnose (cf.
                     Menzies, "St. Paul's Infirmity" in the Expository Times", July and Sept., 1904),
                     but despite this painful and humiliating infirmity (II Cor., xii, 7-9; Gal., iv, 13-14)
                     and although his bearing was not impressive (II Cor., x, 10), Paul must
                     undoubtedly have been possessed of great physical strength to have sustained
                     so long such superhuman labours (II Cor., xi, 23-29). Pseudo-Chrysostom, "In
                     princip. apostol. Petrum et Paulum" (in P. G., LIX, 494-95), considers that he
                     died at the age of sixty-eight after having served the Lord for thirty-five years.

                     The moral portrait is more difficult to draw because it is full of contrasts. Its
                     elements will be found: in Lewin, op. cit., II, xi, 410-35 (Paul's Person and
                     Character); in Farrar, Op, cit., Appendix, Excursus I; and especially in Newman,
                     "Sermons preached on Various Occasions", vii, viii.

                                       III. THEOLOGY OF ST. PAUL

                     A. Paul and Christ

                     This question has passed through two distinct phases. According to the principal
                     followers of the Tübingen School, the Apostle had but a vague knowledge of the
                     life and teaching of the historical Christ and even disdained such knowledge as
                     inferior and useless. Their only support is the misinterpreted text: "Et si
                     cognovimus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc jam novimus" (II Cor., v, 16).
                     The opposition noted in this text is not between the historical and the glorified
                     Christ, but between the Messias such as the unbelieving Jews represented Him,
                     such perhaps as he was preached by certain Judaizers, and the Messias as He
                     manifested Himself in His death and Resurrection, as He had been confessed by
                     the converted Paul. It is neither admissible nor probable that Paul would be
                     uninterested in the life and preaching of Him, Whom he loved passionately,
                     Whom he constantly held up for the imitation of his neophytes, and Whose spirit
                     he boasted of having. It is incredible that he would not question on this subject
                     eyewitnesses, such as Barnabas, Silas, or the future historians of Christ, Sts.
                     Mark and Luke, with whom he was so long associated. Careful examination of
                     this subject has brought out the three following conclusions concerning which
                     there is now general agreement: (1) There are in St. Paul more allusions to the
                     life and teachings of Christ than would be suspected at first sight, and the casual
                     way in which they are made shows that the Apostle knew more on the subject
                     than he had the occasion, or the wish to tell. (2) These allusions are more
                     frequent in St. Paul than the Gospels. (3) From Apostolic times there existed a
                     catechesis, treating among other things the life and teachings of Christ, and as
                     all neophytes were supposed to possess a copy it was not necessary to refer
                     thereto save occasionally and in passing.

                     The second phase of the question is closely connected with the first. The same
                     theologians, who maintain that Paul was indifferent to the earthly life and
                     teaching of Christ, deliberately exaggerate his originality and influence.
                     According to them Paul was the creator of theology, the founder of the Church,
                     the preacher of asceticism, the defender of the sacraments and of the
                     ecclesiastical system, the opponent of the religion of love and liberty which
                     Christ came to announce to the world. If, to do him honour, he is called the
                     second founder of Christianity, this must be a degenerate and altered Christianity
                     since it was at least partially opposed to the primitive Christianity. Paul is thus
                     made responsible for every antipathy to modern thought in traditional Christianity.
                     This is to a great extent the origin of the "Back to Christ" movement, the strange
                     wanderings of which we are now witnessing. The chief reason for returning to
                     Christ is to escape Paul, the originator of dogma, the theologian of the faith. The
                     cry "Zuruck zu Jesu" which has resounded in Germany for thirty years, is
                     inspired by the ulterior motive, "Los von Paulus". The problem is: Was Paul's
                     relation to Christ that of a disciple to his master? or was he absolutely
                     autodidactic, independent alike of the Gospel of Christ and the preaching of the
                     Twelve? It must be admitted that most of the papers published shed little light on
                     the subject. However, the discussions have not been useless, for they have
                     shown that the most characteristic Pauline doctrines, such as justifying faith, the
                     redeeming death of Christ, the universality of salvation, are in accord with the
                     writings of the first Apostles, from which they were derived. Julicher in particular
                     has pointed out that Paul's Christology, which is more exalted than that of his
                     companions in the apostolate, was never the object of controversy, and that Paul
                     was not conscious of being singular in this respect from the other heralds of the
                     Gospel. Cf. Morgan, "Back to Christ" in "Dict. of Christ and the Gospels", I,
                     61-67; Sanday, "Paul", loc. cit., II, 886-92; Feine, "Jesus Christus und Paulus"
                     (1902); Goguel, "L'apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ" (Paris, 1904); Julicher, "Paulus
                     und Jesus" (1907).

                     B. The Root Idea of St. Paul's Theology

                     Several modern authors consider that theodicy is at the base, centre, and
                     summit of Pauline theology. "The apostle's doctrine is theocentric, not in reality
                     anthropocentric. What is styled his 'metaphysics' holds for Paul the immediate
                     and sovereign fact of the universe; God, as he conceives Him, is all in all to his
                     reason and heart alike" (Findlay in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", III, 718).
                     Stevens begins the exposition of his "Pauline Theology" with a chapter entitled
                     "The doctrine of God". Sabatier (L'apotre Paul, 1896, 297) also considers that
                     "the last word of Pauline theology is: "God all in all", and he makes the idea of
                     God the crown of Paul's theological edifice. But these authors have not reflected
                     that though the idea of God occupies so large a place in the teaching of the
                     Apostle, whose thought is deeply religious like that of all his compatriots, it is
                     not characteristic of him, nor does it distinguish him from his companions in the
                     apostolate nor even from contemporary Jews. Many modern Protestant
                     theologians, especially among the more or less faithful followers of the Tübingen
                     School, maintain that Paul's doctrine is "anthropocentric", that it starts from his
                     conception of man's inability to fulfill the law of God without the help of grace to
                     such an extent that he is a slave of sin and must wage war against the flesh. But
                     if this be the genesis of Paul's idea it is astonishing that he enunciates it only in
                     one chapter (Rom., vii), the sense of which is controverted, so that if this chapter
                     had not been written, or it had been lost, we would have no means of recovering
                     the key to his teaching. However, most modern theologians now agree that St.
                     Paul's doctrine is Christocentric, that it is at base a soteriology, not from a
                     subjective standpoint, according to the ancient prejudice of the founders of
                     Protestantism who made justification by faith the quintessence of Paulinism, but
                     from the objective standpoint, embracing in a wide synthesis the person and
                     work of the Redeemer. This may be proved empirically by the statement that
                     everything in St. Paul converges towards Jesus Christ, so much so, that
                     abstracting from Jesus Christ it becomes, whether taken collectively or in detail,
                     absolutely incomprehensible. This is proved also by demonstrating that what
                     Paul calls his Gospel is the salvation of all men through Christ and in Christ. This
                     is the standpoint of the following rapid analysis:

                     C. Humanity without Christ

                     The first three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans shows us human nature
                     wholly under the dominion of sin. Neither Gentiles nor Jews had withstood the
                     torrent of evil. The Mosaic Law was a futile barrier because it prescribed good
                     without importing the strength to do it. The Apostle arrives at this mournful
                     conclusion: "There is no distinction [between Jew and Gentile]; for all have
                     sinned, and do need the glory of God" (Rom., iii, 22-23). He subsequently leads
                     us back to the historical cause of this disorder: "By one man sin entered into this
                     world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have
                     sinned" (Rom., v, 12). This man is obviously Adam, the sin which he brought into
                     the world is not only his personal sin, but a predominating sin which entered into
                     all men and left in them the seed of death: "All sinned when Adam sinned; all
                     sinned in and with his sin" (Stevens, "Pauline Theology", 129). It remains to be
                     seen how original sin which is our lot by natural generation, manifests itself
                     outwardly and becomes the source of actual sins. This Paul teaches us in chap.
                     vii, where describing the contest between the Law assisted by reason and human
                     nature weakened by the flesh and the tendency to evil, he represents nature as
                     inevitably vanquished: "For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the
                     inward man: But I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my
                     mind, and captivating me in the law of sin" (Rom., vii, 22-23). This does not mean
                     that the organism, the material substratus, is evil in itself, as some theologians
                     of the Tübingen School have claimed, for the flesh of Christ, which was like unto
                     ours, was exempt from sin, and the Apostle wishes that our bodies, which are
                     destined to rise again, be preserved free from stain. The relation between sin and
                     the flesh is neither inherent nor necessary; it is accidental, determined by an
                     historical fact, and capable of disappearing through the intervention of the Holy
                     Ghost, but it is none the less true that it is not in our power to overcome it
                     unaided and that fallen man had need of a Saviour.

                     Yet God did not abandon sinful man. He continued to manifest Himself through
                     this visible world (Rom., i, 19-20), through the light of a conscience (Rom. ii,
                     14-15), and finally through His ever active and paternally benevolent Providence
                     (Acts, xiv, 16; xvii, 26). Furthermore, in His untiring mercy, He "will have all men
                     to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim., ii, 4). This will is
                     necessarily subsequent to original sin since it concerns man as he is at present.
                     According to His merciful designs God leads man step by step to salvation. To
                     the Patriarchs, and especially to Abraham, He gave his free and generous
                     promise, confirmed by oath (Rom., iv, 13-20; Gal., iii, 15-18), which anticipated
                     the Gospel. To Moses He gave His Law, the observation of which should be a
                     means of salvation (Rom., vii, 10; x, 5), and which, even when violated, as it was
                     in reality, was no less a guide leading to Christ (Gal., iii, 24) and an instrument of
                     mercy in the hands of God. The Law was a mere interlude until such time as
                     humanity should be ripe for a complete revelation (Gal., iii, 19; Rom., v, 20), and
                     thus provoked the Divine wrath (Rom., iv, 15). But good will arise from the excess
                     of evil and "the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the
                     faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe" (Gal., iii, 22). This
                     would be fulfilled in the "fullness of the time" (Gal., iv, 4; Eph., i, 10), that is, at
                     the time set by God for the execution of His merciful designs, when man's
                     helplessness should have been well manifested. Then "God sent his Son, made
                     of a woman, made under the law: that he might redeem them who were under the
                     law: that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal., iv, 4).

                     D. The Person of the Redeemer

                     Nearly all statements relating to the person of Jesus Christ bear either directly or
                     indirectly on His role as a Saviour. With St. Paul Christology is a function of
                     soteriology. However broad these outlines, they show us the faithful image of
                     Christ in His pre-existence, in His historical existence and in His glorified life
                     (see F. Prat, "Théologie de Saint Paul").

                     (1) Christ in His pre-existence

                     (a) Christ is of an order superior to all created beings (Eph., i, 21); He is the
                     Creator and Preserver of the World (Col., i, 16-17); all is by Him, in Him , and for
                     Him (Col., i, 16). (b) Christ is the image of the invisible Father (II Cor., iv, 4; Col.,
                     i, 15); He is the Son of God, but unlike other sons is so in an incommunicable
                     manner; He is the Son, the own Son, the well-Beloved, and this He has always
                     been (II Cor., i, 19; Rom., viii, 3, 32; Col., i, 13; Eph., i, 6; etc.). (c) Christ is the
                     object of the doxologies reserved for God (II Tim., iv, 18; Rom., xvi, 27); He is
                     prayed to as the equal of the Father (II Cor., xii, 8-9; Rom., x, 12; I Cor., i, 2);
                     gifts are asked of Him which it is in the power of God alone to grant, namely
                     grace, mercy, salvation (Rom., i, 7; xvi, 20; I Cor., i,3; xvi, 23; etc. before Him
                     every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil., ii, 10), as
                     every head inclines in adoration of the majesty of the Most High. (d) Christ
                     possesses all the Divine attributes; He is eternal, since He is the "first born of
                     every creature" and exists before all ages (Col., i, 15, 17); He is immutable,
                     since He exists "in the form of God" (Phil., ii, 6); He is omnipotent, since He has
                     the power to bring forth being from nothingness (Col., i, 16); He is immense,
                     since He fills all things with His plenitude (Eph., iv, 10; Col., ii, 10); He is infinite
                     since "the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him" (Col.ii, 9). All that is the
                     special property of the God belongs of right to Him; the judgment seat of God is
                     the judgment seat of Christ (Rom., xiv, 10; II Cor., v, 10); the Gospel of God is
                     the Gospel of Christ (Rom., i, 1, 9; xv, 16, 19, etc.); the Church of God is the
                     Church of Christ (I Cor., i, 2 and Rom., xvi 16 sqq.); the Kingdom of God is the
                     Kingdom of Christ (Eph., v, 5), the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ (Rom., viii,
                     9 sqq). (e) Christ is the one Lord (I Cor., viii, 6); He is identified with Jehovah of
                     the Old Covenant (I Cor., x, 4, 9; Rom., x, 13; cf. I Cor., ii, 16; ix, 21); He is the
                     God who has purchased the church with his own blood" (Acts, xx, 28); He is our
                     "great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (Tit., ii, 13); He is the "God over all things"
                     (Rom., ix, 5), effacing by His infinite transcendency the sum and substance of
                     created things.

                     (2) Jesus Christ as Man

                     The other aspect of the figure of Christ is drawn with no less firm a hand. Jesus
                     Christ is the second Adam (Rom., v, 14; I Cor., xv, 45-49); "the mediator of God
                     and men" (I Tim., ii, 5), and as such He must necessarily be man (anthropos
                     Christos Iesous). So He is the descendant of the Patriarchs (Rom., ix, 5; Gal.,
                     iii, 16), He is "of the seed of David, according to the flesh)" (Rom., i, 3), "born of a
                     woman" (Gal., iv, 4), like all men; finally, He is known as a man by His
                     appearance, which is exactly similar to that of men (Phil., ii, 7), save for sin,
                     which He did not and could not know (II Cor., v, 21). When St. Paul says that
                     "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom., viii, 3), he does not
                     mean to deny the reality of Christ's flesh, but excludes only sinful flesh.

                     Nowhere does the Apostle explain how the union of the Divine and the human
                     natures is accomplished in Christ, being content to affirm that He who was "in
                     the form of God' took "the form of a servant" (Phil., ii, 6-7), or he states the
                     Incarnation in this laconic formula: "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the
                     Godhead corporeally" (Col., ii, 9). What we see clearly is that there is in Christ a
                     single Person to whom are attributed, often in the same sentence, qualities
                     proper to the Divine and the human nature, to the pre-existence, the historical
                     existence, and the glorified life (Col., i, 15-19; Phil., ii, 5-11; etc.). The theological
                     explanation of the mystery has given rise to numerous errors. Denial was made
                     of one of the natures, either the human (Docetism), or the Divine (Arianism), or
                     the two natures were considered to be united in a purely accidental manner so
                     as to produce two persons (Nestorianism), or the two natures were merged into
                     one (Monophysitism), or on pretext of uniting them in one person the heretics
                     mutilated either the human nature (Apollinarianism), or the Divine, according to
                     the strange modern heresy known as Kenosis.

                     The last-mentioned requires a brief treatment, as it is based on a saying of St.
                     Paul "Being in the form of God . . . emptied himself (ekenosen eauton, hence
                     kenosis) taking the form of a servant" (Phil., ii, 6-7). Contrary to the common
                     opinion, Luther applied these words not to the Word, but to Christ, the Incarnate
                     Word. Moreover he understood the communicatio idiomatus as a real possession
                     by each of the two natures of the attributes of the other. According to this the
                     human nature of Christ would possess the Divine attributes of ubiquity,
                     omniscience, and omnipotence. There are two systems among Lutheran
                     theologians, one asserting that the human nature of Christ was voluntarily
                     stripped of these attributes (kenosis), the other that they were hidden during His
                     mortal existence (krypsis). In modern times the doctrine of Kenosis, while still
                     restricted to Lutheran theology, has completely changed its opinions. Starting
                     with the philosophical idea that "personality" is identified with "consciousness", it
                     is maintained that where there is only one person there can be only one
                     consciousness; but since the consciousness of Christ was Christ was a truly
                     human consciousness, the Divine consciousness must of necessity have ceased
                     to exist or act in Him. According to Thomasius, the theorist of the system, the
                     Son of God was stripped, not after the Incarnation, as Luther asserted, but by the
                     very fact of the Incarnation, and what rendered possible the union of the Logos
                     with the humanity was the faculty possessed by the Divinity to limit itself both as
                     to being and activity. The other partisans of the system express themselves in a
                     similar manner. Gess, for instance, says that in Jesus Christ the Divine ego is
                     changed into the human ego. When it is objected that God is immutable, that He
                     can neither cease to be, nor limit Himself, nor transform Himself, they reply that
                     this reasoning is on metaphysical hypotheses and concepts without reality. (For
                     the various forms of Kenosis see Bruce, "The Humiliation of Christ", p. 136.)

                     All these systems are merely variations of Monophysitism. Unconsciously they
                     assume that there is in Christ but a single nature as there is but a single person.
                     According to the Catholic doctrine, on the contrary, the union of the two natures
                     in a single person involves no change in the Divine nature and need involve no
                     physical change of the human nature of Christ. Without doubt Christ is the Son
                     and is morally entitled even as man to the goods of His Father, vix. the
                     immediate vision of God, eternal beatitude, the state of glory. He is temporarily
                     deprived of a portion of these goods in order that he may fulfill His mission as
                     Redeemer. This is the abasement, the annihilation, of which St. Paul speaks, but
                     it is a totally different thing from the Kenosis as described above.

                     E. The Objective Redemption as the Work of Christ

                     We have seen that fallen man being unable to arise again unaided, God in His
                     mercy sent His Son to save him. It is an elementary and often repeated doctrine
                     of St. Paul that Jesus Christ saves us through the Cross, that we are "justified by
                     His blood", that "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Rom., v,
                     9-10). What endowed the blood of Christ, His death, His Cross, with this
                     redeeming virtue? Paul never answers this question directly, but he shows us the
                     drama of Calvary under three aspects, which there is danger in separating and
                     which are better understood when compared: (a) at one time the death of Christ
                     is a sacrifice intended, like the sacrifice of the Old Law, to expiate sin and
                     propitiate God. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", 91-94, "The death of Christ
                     considered as a sacrifice". "It is impossible from this passage (Rom., iii, 25) to
                     get rid of the double idea: (1) of a sacrifice; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory
                     . . . Quite apart from this passage it is not difficult to prove that these two ideas
                     of sacrifice and propitiation lie at the root of the teaching not only of St. Paul but
                     of the new Testament generally." The double danger of this idea is, first to wish
                     to apply to the sacrifice of Christ all the mode of action, real or supposed, of the
                     imperfect sacrifices of the Old Law; and second, to believe that God is appeased
                     by a sort of magical effect, in virtue of this sacrifice, whereas on the contrary it
                     was He Who took the initiative of mercy, instituted the sacrifice of Calvary, and
                     endowed it with its expiatory value. (b) At another time the death of Christ is
                     represented as a redemption, the payment of a ransom, as the result of which
                     man was delivered from all his past servitude (I Cor., vi, 20; vii, 23 [times
                     egorasthete]; Gal., iii, 13; iv, 5 [ina tous hypo nomon exagorase]; Rom., iii, 24; I
                     Cor., i, 30; Eph., i, 7, 14; Col., i, 14 [apolytrosis]; I Tim., ii, 6 [antilytron]; etc.)
                     This idea, correct as it is, may have inconveniences if isolated or exaggerated.
                     By carrying it beyond what was written, some of the Fathers put forth the strange
                     suggestion of a ransom paid by Christ to the demon who held us in bondage.
                     Another mistake is to regard the death of Christ as having a value in itself,
                     independent of Christ Who offered it and God Who accepted it for the remission
                     of our sins.

                     (c) Often, too, Christ seems to substitute Himself for us in order to undergo in our
                     stead the chastisement for sin. He suffers physical death to save us from the
                     moral death of sin and preserve us from eternal death. This idea of substitution
                     appealed so strongly to Lutheran theologians that they admitted quantitative
                     equality between the sufferings really endured by Christ and the penalties
                     deserved by our sins. They even maintained that Jesus underwent the penalty of
                     loss (of the vision of God) and the malediction of the Father. These are the
                     extravagances which have cast so much discredit on the theory of subsitution. It
                     has been rightly said that the transfer of a chastisement from one person to
                     another is an injustice and a contradiction, for the chastisement is inseparable
                     from the fault and an undeserved chastisement is no longer a chastisement.
                     Besides, St. Paul never said that Christ died in our stead (anti), but only that he
                     died for us (hyper) because of our sins.

                     In reality the three standpoints considered above are but three aspects of the
                     Redemption which, far from excluding one another, should harmonize and
                     combine, modifying if necessary all the other aspects of the problem. In the
                     following text St. Paul assembles these various aspects with several others. We
                     are "justified freely by his grace, through the Redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,
                     whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the
                     shewing of his [hidden] justice, for the remission of former sins, through the
                     forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that of himself may
                     be [known as] just, and the justifier of him, who is in the faith of Jesus Christ"
                     (Rom., iii, 24-26). Herein are designated the part of God, of Christ, and of man:
                     (1) God takes the initiative; it is He who offers His Son; He intends to manifest
                     His justice, but is moved thereto by mercy. It is therefore incorrect or more or
                     less inadequate to say that God was angry with the human race and that He was
                     only appeased by the death of His Son. (2) Christ is our Redemption
                     (apolytrosis), He is the instrument of expiation or propitiation (ilasterion), and is
                     such by His Sacrifice (en to autou aimati), which does not resemble those
                     ofirrational animals; it dervies its value from Christ, who offers it for us to His
                     Father through obedience and love (Phil., ii, 8; Gal., ii, 20). (3) Man is not merely
                     passive in the drama of his salvation; he must understand the lesson which God
                     teaches, and appropriate by faith the fruit of the Redemption.

                     F. The Subjective Redemption

                     Christ having once died and risen, the Redemption is completed in law and in
                     principle for the whole human race. Each man makes it his own in fact and in act
                     by faith and baptism which, by uniting him with Christ, causes him to participate
                     in His Divine life. Faith, according to St. Paul, is composed of several elements;
                     it is the submission of the intellect to the word of God, the trusting abandonment
                     of the believer to the Saviour Who promises him assistance; it is also an act of
                     obedience by which man accepts the Divine will. Such an act has a moral value,
                     for it "gives glory to God" (Rom., iv, 20) in the measure in which it recognizes its
                     own helplessness. That is why "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to
                     him unto justice" (Rom., iv, 3; Gal., iii, 6). The spiritual children of Abraham are
                     likewise "justified by faith, without the works of the law" (Rom., iii, 28; cf. Gal., ii,
                     16). Hence it follows: (1) That justice is granted by God in consideration of faith.
                     (2) That, neverthelss, faith is not equivalent to justice, since man is justified "by
                     grace" (Rom., iv, 6). (3) That the justice freely granted to man becomes his
                     property and is inherent in him. Protestants formerly asserted that the justice of
                     Christ is imputed to us, but now they are generally agreed that this argument is
                     unscriptural and lacks the guaranty of Paul; but some, loth to base justification
                     on a good work (ergon), deny a moral value to faith and claim that justification is
                     but a forensic judgment of God which alters absolutely nothing in the justified
                     sinner. But this theory is untenable; for: (1) even admitting that "to justify"
                     signifies "to pronounce just", it is absurd to suppose that God really pronounces
                     just anyone who is not already so or who is not rendered so by the declaration
                     itself. (2) Justification is inseparable from sanctification, for the latter is "a
                     justification of life" (Rom., v, 18) and every "just man liveth by faith" (Rom., i, 17;
                     Gal., iii, 11). (3) By faith and baptism we die to the "old man", our former selves;
                     now this is impossible without beginning to live as the new man, who "according
                     to God, is created in justice and holiness" (Rom., vi, 3-5; Eph., iv, 24; I Cor., i,
                     30; vi, 11). We may, therefore, establish a distinction in definition and concept
                     between justification and sanctification, but we can neither separate them nor
                     regard them as separate.

                     G. Moral Doctrine

                     A remarkable characteristic of Paulinism is that it connects morality with the
                     subjective redemption or justification. This is especially striking in chap. vi, of the
                     Epistle to the Romans. In baptism "our old man is crucified with [Christ] that, the
                     body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer"
                     (Rom., vi, 6). Our incorporation with the mystical Christ is not only a
                     transformation and a metamorphosis, but a real reaction, the production of a new
                     being, subject to new laws and consequently to new duties. To understand the
                     extent of our obligations it is enough for us to know ourselves as Christians and
                     to reflect on the various relations which result from our supernatural birth: that of
                     sonship to God the Father, of consecration to the Holy Ghost, of mystical
                     identity with our Saviour Jesus Christ, of brotherly union with the other members
                     of Christ. But this is not all. Paul says to the neophytes: "Thanks be to God, that
                     you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of
                     doctrine, into which you have been delivered. . . . But now being made free from
                     sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the
                     end life everlasting" (Rom., vi, 17, 22). By the act of faith and by baptism, its
                     seal, the Christian freely makes himself the servant of God and the soldier of
                     Christ. God's will, which he accepts in advance in the measure in which it shall
                     be manifested, becomes thenceforth his rule of conduct. Thus Paul's moral code
                     rests on the one hand on the positive will of God made known by Christ,
                     promulgated by the Apostles, and virtually accepted by the neophyte in his first
                     act of faith, and on the other, in baptismal regeneration and the new relations
                     which it produces. All Paul's commands and recommendations are merely
                     applications of these principles.

                     H. Eschatology

                     (1) The graphic description of the Pauline parousia (I Thess., iv, 16-17; II Thess.,
                     i, 7-10) has nearly all its main points in Christ's great eschatological discourse
                     (Matt, xxiv; Mark, xiii, Luke, xxi). A common characteristic of all these passages
                     is the apparent nearness of the parousia. Paul does not assert that the coming of
                     the Saviour is at hand. In each of the five epistles, wherein he expresses the
                     desire and the hope to witness in person the return of Christ, he at the same
                     time considers the probability of the contrary hypothesis, proving that he had
                     neither revelation nor certainty on the point. He knows only that the day of the
                     lord will come unexpectedly, like a thief (I Thess.v, 2-3), and he counsels the
                     neophytes to make themselves ready without neglecting the duties of their state
                     of life (II Thess., iii, 6-12). Although the coming of Christ will be sudden, it will be
                     heralded by three signs: general apostasy (II Thess., ii, 3), the appearance of
                     Antichrist (ii, 3-12), and the conversion of the Jews (Rom., xi, 26). A particular
                     circumstance of St. Paul's preaching is that the just who shall be living at
                     Christ's second advent will pass to glorious immortality without dying [I Thess.,
                     iv, 17; I Cor., xv, 51 (Greek text); II Cor., v, 2-5].

                     (2) Owing to the doubts of the Corinthians Paul treats the resurrection of the just
                     at some length. He does not ignore the resurrection of the sinners, which he
                     affirmed before the Governor Felix (Acts, xxiv, 15), but he does not concern
                     himself with it in his Epistles. When he says that "the dead who are in Christ
                     shall rise first" (proton, I Thess., iv, 16, Greek) this "first" offsets, not another
                     resurrection of the dead, but the glorious transformation of the living. In like
                     manner "the evil" of which he speaks (tou telos, I Cor., xv, 24) is not the end of
                     the resurrection, but of the present world and the beginning of a new order of
                     things. All the arguments which he advances in behalf of the resurrection may be
                     reduced to three: the mystical union of the Christian with Christ, the presence
                     within us of the Spirit of Holiness, the interior and supernatural conviction of the
                     faithful and the Apostles. It is evident that these arguments deal only with the
                     glorious resurrection of the just. In short, the resurrection of the wicked does not
                     come within his theological horizon. What is the condition of the souls of the just
                     between death and resurrection? These souls enjoy the presence of Christ (II
                     Cor., v., 8); their lot is enviable (Phil., i, 23); hence it is impossible that they
                     should be without life, activity, or consciousness.

                     (3) The judgment according to St. Paul as according to the Synoptics, is closely
                     connected with the parousia and the resurrection. They are the three acts of the
                     same drama which constitute the Day of the Lord (I Cor., i, 8; II Cor., i, 14; Phil.,
                     i, 6, 10; ii, 16). "For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of
                     Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he
                     hath done, whether it be good or evil" (II Cor., v, 10).

                     Two conclusions are derived from this text:

                     (1) The judgment shall be universal, neither the good nor the wicked shall escape
                     (Rom., xiv, 10-12), nor even the angels (I Cor., vi, 3); all who are brought to trial
                     must account for the use of their liberty.

                     (2) The judgment shall be according to works: this is a truth frequently reiterated
                     by St. Paul, concerning sinners (II Cor., xi, 15), the just (II Tim., iv, 14), and men
                     in general (Rom., ii, 6-9). Many Protestants marvel at this and claim that in St.
                     Paul this doctrine is a survival of his rabbinical education (Pfleiderer), or that he
                     could not make it harmonize with his doctrine of gratuitous justification (Reuss),
                     or that the reward will be in proportion to the act, as the harvest is in proportion to
                     the sowing, but that it will not be because of or with a view to the act (Weiss).
                     These authors lose sight of the fact that St. Paul distinguishes between two
                     justifications, the first necessarily gratuitous since man was then incapable of
                     meriting it (Rom., iii, 28; Gal., ii, 16), the second in conformity to his works
                     (Rom., ii, 6: kata ta erga), since man, when adorned with sanctifying grace, is
                     capable of merit as the sinner is of demerit. Hence the celestial recompense is
                     "a crown of justice which the Lord the just judge will render" (II Tim., iv, 8) to
                     whomsoever has legitimately gained it.

                     Briefly, St. Paul's eschatology is not so distinctive as it has been made to
                     appear. Perhaps its most original characteristic is the continuity between the
                     present and the future of the just, between grace and glory, between salvation
                     begun and salvation consummated. A large number of terms, redemption,
                     justification, salvation, kingdom, glory and especially life, are common to the two
                     states, or rather to the two phases of the same existence linked by charity which
                     "never falleth away".

                     F. Prat
                     Transcribed by Donald J. Boon

                                       The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI
                                    Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
                                    Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
                                 Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
                                 Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: