ust exercise upon its members the severity of
judgement[20], that 'he that hath done' the evil deed 'might be taken
away from among them,' or excommunicated. Once more, we cannot
conceive St. Paul making the necessity of visible unity a secondary
consideration[21], nor {148} the recognition of the authority of the
apostolic ministry which is to be the centre of unity, nor the
sacraments, which again are not only means of divine grace to the
individual but instruments and bonds of unity. Nor again would St.
Paul undervalue the spirit of obedience to the rules of the Church. He
hates the spirit of heresy or separatism. 'We have no such custom,' he
would say to the recalcitrant, 'neither the churches of God[22].' Once
again, St. Paul is prepared to let everything turn on even a small and
unessential point, if that point has become the symbol of a vital
principle for good or evil. Thus, in itself, 'circumcision was
nothing,' but when among the Galatians the practice of it came to mean
a practical Judaizing--a practical abandonment of the fundamental
Christian principle--then 'Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye
receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing[23].'

Here, then, are St. Paul's essentials, as to which he is intolerant--a
fundamental tradition of faith and morals: the maintenance of the unity
of the body by means of the apostolic stewardship, and through the 'one
baptism,' and the 'one loaf': and the spirit of due subordination {149}
which is necessary to corporate life. But in a spirit very unlike what
has at times become prevalent in the Church, he would clearly minimize
the action of authority, and leave large room for the free movement of
conscience in Christians. 'Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be
thus minded: and if in anything ye are otherwise minded, even this
shall God reveal unto you: only, whereunto we have already attained, by
that same _rule_ let us walk[24].'

Surely it is not very difficult to apply this spirit of St. Paul to our
own time, in view of those subordinate points which excite such deep
animosities. Men are by fundamental disposition, in great measure,
ritualist or puritan, ecclesiastically or individually minded,
disciplinarian or mystical. And the Church should lay on all a certain
common law of doctrine and morals and worship, sufficient to keep them
all together in one body. But, consistently with the coherence of the
body, why should there not be bo