An adequate discussion of the problem thus raised is impossible here; but one or two points may be noted :
(a) St. Paul certainly associates baptism with 'death' and 'resurrection' (Bo 63, Col 212), and with the reception of the Spirit (1 Co 1213). But, while these passages, and certain others reu^arding the Eucharist (1 Co 1016 ii2r. aO)^ rnay be consistent with Schweitzer's theory of 'effectual sacraments,' they are also explicable on the view that St. Paul is regarding the rite as the symbol of grace conferred — a symbol normally linked with the spiritual gift, but not so necessary that without the rite the gift cannot be conveyed, nor yet mechanically convejing the gift ex opere operato. In one of the above passages (Col 2i'-') the context (2i'*f.) is full of highly metaphorical language. From these passages we are driven to conclude that the theory of a Pauline doctrine of ' effectual sacraments ' is ' Not proven.'
(/3) But, further, there are other passages where St. Paul's arguments are definitely against the view that sacraments con- vey the new life ex opere operato. In 1 Co S^-is ioi*-32 he clearly teaches that the effect of partaking in a communion- feast is dependent on the state of mind of the recipient. The partaking becomes serious if it arouses uneasy doubt in the mind of the ' weaker brother ' who witnesses his act ; but, apart from this possibility, and if the recipient is clear in his own conscience, the partaking will have no effect ex opere operato. The argument here refers to non-Christian 'sacraments,' hut it is consistent with the Apostle's general attitude towards external rites and ceremonies : ' In Christ Jesus neither cir- cumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love '(Gal 5*> ; cf. 61*32, etc.). The omission of any reference to the Christian sacraments in such passages would be strange indeed, if the future salvation of the Christian was normally conveyed to him only through baptism and the Eucharist.
(y) The references to the sacraments in St. Paul's Epistles, viewed as a whole, are hardly sufficient to warrant the theory that the sacraments held a central place in his theology. Lake contends that this silence shows that the importance of the sacraments was universally accepted in the Church, and needed no further emphasis {op. cit. p. 233 n.). But we may reasonably ask for some positive evidence that the sacraments had already sprung into a position of central importance in the Church, before we set aside tlie ' argument from silence.' 1 Co in, ' I thank God that I baptized none of you,' does not suggest that St. Paul put baptism in the place of central importance in the gospel.
(5) When Schweitzer tells us that St. Paul 'found already existing a baptism and a Lord's Supper which guaranteed sal- vation (op. cit. p. 215 ; cf. p. 242), and that his doctrine of the sacraments ' is intejjrally, simply, and exclusively eschatological ' (p. 244), we may reasonably ask what evidence is forthcoming from the Jewish apocalypses to justify such assertions. Schweitzer adduces no such evidence ; nor is the present writer acquainted with any.
We conclude, then, that the evidence does not support the theory that the primitive Church as a whole believed that eternal life was conveyed normally by the sacraments, but rather that it
ESCHATOLOGY
ESDRAS, THE SECO^^D BOOK OE 365
was a free gift received immediately by faith. At the same time, it is likely enough that the less educated Christians did regard Christianity as a kind of Mystery-Religion, with sacraments of a magical character. The obscure custom of ' bap- tism for the dead ' may have been associated with some such ideas (1 Co 15^), but it does not appear that thej' were shared by St. Paul, or by any of the NT writers. (For a careful discussion of this subject, see Clemen, Primitive Christianity and its non-Jewish Sources, pp. 223-250.)
2. The eschatology of the early Gentile-Chris- tian churches. — (1) The fruit of St. Paul's teaching. — St. Paul may fairly be regarded as the precursor of a Gentile type of Christian eschatology ; for, although the instances of definitely Greek ideas in his writings are but few, he was in sympathy with non-Jewish ways of approaching the problems of life, and he was the champion of Gentile claims within the Church of Christ. Without his efforts Gentile thought would have been debarred from having free scope in the Church. But in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Ages, as we trace the doctrine of the Last Things through Clement of Rome, Ignatius, 2 Clement, Aristides, and Justin, down to Irenteus at the close of the 2nd cent., there is but little evidence of a distinctively Gentile type of Christian eschatologj'. Jewish ideas and phraseology' show no signs of disappearing entirely ; and indeed Christian eschatology is never likely to lose all traces of its Jewish antecedents.
(2) Distinctive features of Gentile-Christian escha- tology.— Yet the following changes may be attri- buted in great measure to the influence of Gentile thought, (a) The technical Jewish terms are replaced by others of a more ' prosaic ' character : e.g. in Clem, ad Cor. we find the Return described as an fKevcns (17) rather than as a irapovcrla or an diroKaXvypLS. And in Ignatius the term 'Parousia' is applied to the First Coming of our Lord at His Nativity (ad Phil. 9). Such changes show that the traditional Jewish scheme is undergoing a measure of ' re-statement ' at the hands of men who were unaccustomed to the apocalyptic scheme of the Last Things.