Let us think for a moment what the theory involves. It involves that the
Pauline Gospel not only conquered the West, but that it came flooding
back in a great reflux-wave all over the East. The East, on this theory,
has no power of resistance; it surrenders at discretion. How does this
accord with the evidence?
i. In order that there should be this conquest and annexation of the
whole Church by the Pauline Gospel it is implied, and it is of the
essence of the theory to imply, that there was a broad and well-marked
difference between this Pauline Gospel and the general belief of the
Church, more particularly of the Mother Church. But St. Paul himself
expressly disclaims any such difference; he was anxious that there
should not be any, and he took steps to guard against the possibility
that serious divergence might have come between them unawares. He tells
us that he compared notes with the leading apostles at Jerusalem, to
make sure that he and they were preaching substantially the same thing:
‘I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but
privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be
running, or had run in vain’ (Gal. ii. 2). And again, at the end of the
conferences, he tells us how James and Peter and John gave to him and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, as a pledge of their substantial
agreement (ibid. ver. 9).
It is true that there were points of discussion, which in other sections
of the Church amounted to controversy, between St. Paul and the Judaean
Christians. But the Epistle to the Galatians allows us to see the full
extent of these debatable matters; and, by defining them, it also
defines the extent of the common ground of agreement. What we should
call the doctrine of the Person of Christ certainly comes under the
latter head, and not under the former. The Mother Church was not
Ebionite, or St. Paul would have been in still sharper antagonism to it
than he was.
ii. It was this substantial agreement between St. Paul and the leading
Apostles that saved the Church from a formidable rupture. Such glimpses
as we have of the Judaean churches do not at all give us the impression
that they would have submitted meekly to Pauline dictation. No doubt
there was a considerable prejudice against St. Paul personally; but it
was a prejudice that turned upon other things altogether than his
teaching about Christ. We have in Acts xxi. 20-5 a graphic description,
which is also full of verisimilitude, of the kind of ways in which St.
Paul came into collision with the Jewish Christians; but his teaching
about Christ was not one of them.
iii. We have seen that the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God, was common ground for all Christians. It was on this ground that
St. Paul and the Judaean churches felt themselves one. They also felt
themselves one in what we ought not to call the doctrine of the Trinity,
but in those root-facts out of which the doctrine of the Trinity
afterwards came to be formulated. There was doubtless still room for
variety of speculation. There was room for different interpretation of
current terms and current beliefs. The doctrine of the Church had as yet
a certain fluidity. St. Paul might take one line, and Cephas another,
and Apollos a third. And yet Christ was not divided. There was a
consciousness of union underlying these differences. There was a sense,
that could not as yet be put adequately into words, of certain great
facts, of certain fundamental beliefs, by virtue of which the Church was
one.
iv. It is out of this common ground, and not out of the special features
of the Pauline theology, that the teaching of the Fourth Gospel really
sprang. True, there are resemblances and affinities between details in
the theologies of the Evangelist and the Apostle. But it does not follow
that these were borrowed by the one from the other[73]. If they had
been, we may be sure that there would have been clearer evidence of the
fact. Somewhere in the group of Johannean writings there would have been
a side-glance at St. Paul that we should have understood. As it is, the
two great Apostolic cycles stand majestically apart. There may be a
connexion between them, but it is a connexion in the main underground.
There is no direct affiliation, but the parentage of both lies behind.
Many a seed sprouted in the early years of the Pentecostal Church: but
it was not this apostle or that who made them grow; the seeds were sown
before Pentecost, and they had their watering and their growth and their
increase from the same Hand.
It is true that we cannot give chapter and verse for all this. The books
from which chapter and verse might have been taken were never written.
Even in our own much-lettered age, how many a pregnant thought is there
that is not caught and fixed in writing! And what sort of record should
we have of the thought, say, of America or England for some fifteen
years, if the chronicle of it were compressed into a single document of
the length of the first twelve chapters of the Acts?
The best record of the thoughts that grew and fructified in those
momentous early years is to be found not in the Acts but in the Gospels;
and the fact that it is to be sought there shows whence the impulse
really came. It may seem a truism to maintain that Jesus Christ was the
real Founder of Christianity, and that He founded it by what He was, and
not by what men imagined Him to be. Of course to many Christians it will
seem a truism to say this; the simple Christian never thought otherwise;
but there are Christians who are not simple, and who may be encouraged
to search with a closer scrutiny to see if the old account of the origin
of Christianity is not the best, indeed the only account possible. The
New Testament is scattered with hints, which are not more than hints,
arrow-heads as it were pointing back to Christ. These are a profitable
subject of study—none more profitable. If we pay attention to these
hints, and if we look for the roots of St. Paul’s teaching, I do not
think we shall say that Christianity—the Christianity of nineteen
centuries—was his invention, and that St. John did but follow in his
train.