__________________________________________________________________

           Title: The Early Years of Christianity: The Apostolic Era.
      Creator(s): Pressense, E. de
   CCEL Subjects: All; History
     __________________________________________________________________

    THE

                                  EARLY YEARS

    OF

                                 CHRISTIANITY.

   BY E. DE PRESSENSÉ, D.D.,

   AUTHOR OF "JESUS CHRIST: HIS TIMES, LIFE, AND WORK."

   TRANSLATED BY ANNIE HARWOOD.

THE APOSTOLIC ERA

  NEW YORK:
  CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO.,

    654 BROADWAY.
    1870.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION.

   OF all the topics of the day, none is of graver importance than the
   early history of Christianity, and the foundation of the Church. Every
   thing points inquiry in this direction. A bold criticism claims the
   right to snatch from our hands the documents of this great history, and
   to scatter them in fragments to the winds. It is not enough for us to
   take refuge in our faith as in an inviolable sanctuary; we must
   establish that faith on solid ground, and produce its original titles.
   Our part is not to linger on the shore, lamenting the constraint which
   keeps us there, but rather to abjure the false dominion of a faith
   imposed by authority, to cross the stormy sea, and plant our feet in
   the enemy's country, on the much-cultivated soil of contemporary
   criticism. The fact is not to be disguised that science, hostile to
   Christianity, has long ago left the lonely height from which it was
   once wont to bend a pitying eye upon the ignorant masses. No lips take
   up in our day the cry, "Odi profanum vulgus;" every one feels that such
   a motto would be the confession of weakness. The law of most democratic
   reform has finally asserted itself in the world of thought; we are
   governed by the universal suffrage of minds. Therefore science has
   assumed, in its hostility to Christianity, a popular form. It has not
   contented itself with the light, quivering arrows, as piercing as they
   were brilliant, discharged in such rapid flight by the great satirist
   of the eighteenth century. It has forged other weapons; it has
   transfused into the vulgar tongue the results of criticism; it has
   coined a currency, which circulates from hand to hand, out of those
   heavy ingots which seemed immovable in their ponderosity. While in
   Germany, Strauss's "Leben Jesu" has been read and pondered in cottages
   and workshops, men in France, unaware of the very existence of that
   famous book, have been initiated into its conclusions. M. Renan's "Vie
   de Jésus"—circulated by thousands of copies—has given a new popularity
   to the results of negative criticism, by casting them into a poetic
   mold. Thus, from day to day, a form of skepticism is being developed
   which is so much the more dangerous because it conceives itself better
   informed. It is present in the very air we breathe; it finds its way
   into the lightest publications; the novel and the journal vie with each
   other in its diffusion; short review articles, skilled in giving grace
   and piquancy to erudition, furnish it with arguments which appear
   weighty, because they are so in comparison with the. pleasantries of
   Voltaire. Such a condition of things is critical, and calls for grave
   and special consideration. If those who are convinced of the divinity
   of Christianity slumber on in false and fatal security, they must be
   prepared to pay dearly for their slothfulness; and the Church and
   mankind—which have need of each other—will pay dearly for it also. The
   voice of skepticism will alone be heard, and the sweeping assertions of
   an unbelief—often more credulous than bigotry—will pass for axioms.

   There can be no doubt of the ignorance which extensively prevails, even
   among the highly cultivated, as to the nature and origin of
   Christianity. This is the newest of themes, because that which has
   fallen into deepest oblivion. We are persuaded that the best method of
   defense against the shallow skepticism which assails us, and which
   dismisses, with a scornful smile, documents, the titles of which it has
   never examined, is to retrace the history of primitive Christianity,
   employing all the materials accumulated by the Christian science of our
   day; for it must be well understood among us that there is in truth
   such a thing as Christian science in the nineteenth century. Those who
   have taken upon themselves, during the last few years, to initiate
   other countries into the scientific movement of Germany, have only
   brought into view one side. The other side deserves a like publicity;
   and as this very subject of the early history of Christianity has been
   treated with a marked predilection by the greatest Christian divines of
   our age, we are bound, in approaching it, to remember their labors, and
   profit by all the treasures their patient researches have amassed.

   This subject commends itself to us also from another point of view. We
   are the witnesses of an unparalleled triumph of ecclesiastical
   authority, which takes advantage of all the ground left at its disposal
   by the general indifference. Our century has seen that which would not
   have been endured by any previous age. It has received the gift—fatal
   or precious—of pushing every principle to its ultimate issues. The
   Roman—I will not say the Catholic—principle achieved its most signal
   victory when a new dogma was proclaimed by a single man. The
   intoxication of success has closed the ears of the Ultramontane party
   against the protestations—dull as yet—of the Christian conscience in
   the bosom of that very Church, whose rights have thus unscrupulously
   been trodden under foot. The approaching Council, if we may judge by
   the letters of convocation, is about to formulate as dogmas the most
   senseless pretensions of Ultramontanism—the infallibility of the Pope,
   the temporal power, and the negation of liberty of conscience.
   Discussion would be perfectly useless with the heads of this party, who
   will see nothing, hear nothing, that differs from their own opinion,
   "Let the dead bury their dead," and let us not concern ourselves with
   them, except when they seek to bury us also in the same tomb. But it
   would be a serious mistake to suppose that this intolerant faction has
   succeeded in overcoming all resistance. A formidable crisis has
   commenced in the history of Catholicism, and nothing will check it.
   Grave questions are proposed; it must be ascertained whence the Papacy
   has derived this vast authority which it has so boldly assumed. Let us
   produce its titles. It is cited before the bar of history. Now or never
   is the time to listen to that inflexible judge, whose sentence, thanks
   to the discovery of numerous documents, we can hear for ourselves. It
   is clear what interest must attach under these circumstances to an
   investigation of the history of primitive Christianity.

   Nor has the subject a lower claim on Protestants. Before them also
   there are serious questions for solution, both in the domain of
   theology and in that of the Church. There is not a single religious
   party which does not feel the need either of confirmation or of
   transformation. All the Churches, born of the great movement of the
   sixteenth century, are passing through a time of crisis. They are all
   asking themselves, though from various stand-points, whether the
   Reformation does not need to be continued and developed. Aspiration
   toward the Church of the future is becoming more general, more ardent.
   But for all who admit the divine origin of Christianity, the Church of
   the future has its type and ideal in that great past, which goes back
   not three, but eighteen centuries. To cultivate a growing knowledge of
   this, in order to attain a growing conformity to it, is the task of the
   Church of to-day. This is the path in which it will find liberty and
   holiness—those two attributes so closely linked together, and so
   necessary to enable the Church to rise to the height of its true
   vocation. In the same direction it must move, in order to make that
   advance in its theology which prudence and necessity alike dictate, and
   which will consist only in an ever-deepening appropriation of apostolic
   doctrine. Thus by a concurrence of circumstances, which reveal the
   manifest will of God, the attention of our age is directed to the
   question of the origin of Christianity.

   This great subject we have attempted to treat in the present work,
   going back always for our materials to original documents. It is indeed
   an enviable task to take up the history of the early ages of
   Christianity, thanks to the abundant sources of information now opened,
   and to the invaluable discoveries of manuscripts made during the past
   few years.

   It is our aim to present as full a picture as possible of this period,
   commencing with the apostolic age, which is so little understood,
   either from religious indifference or because of the unintelligent
   veneration which surrounds it with a legendary glory, behind which its
   types lose all distinctness and originality. St. Peter, St. Paul, and
   St. John appear too often like those fabulous heroes placed by
   tradition on the threshold of the historic age, after whose era
   history, properly so called, begins. We feel the necessity of
   reconquering, as part of the domain of history, this primitive age of
   the Church. It will thus regain color and life.

   It is not possible in this day, and in view of the recent attacks of
   criticism, to neglect the study of the first century, and to proceed at
   once to that of the second and third. Such a course would leave
   untouched delicate problems which demand a solution. We have placed in
   notes all that relates to the discussion of documents, without which no
   serious history of the Church would be possible. We have endeavored to
   depict, in its true colors, the great conflict of Christianity with the
   society of the old world, which assailed it—without by persecution,
   within by heresy; and which, though vanquished so signally, avenged
   itself in a manner by the leaven of error which it left within the
   bosom of the Church. To follow closely this triumph and this inner
   transformation—to watch all the shifting scenes of the drama, make the
   personages live again and speak their own words—to let constant streams
   from the original sources flow throughout the whole course of the
   narrative, so that all religious parties may find exact information in
   our book, even though they differ from our conclusions—such has been
   our aim. It will be much to have contributed any thing, by earnest
   effort, toward such an end. We confine ourselves in this work to the
   first three centuries of the Church, because the period which precedes
   the great Councils has a peculiar interest. The Church of this early
   period has not yet bowed under the yoke of a mechanical and external
   unity. Its various sections have each a distinct physiognomy, and we
   can speak of the Church of the East and the Church of the West; in
   short, we are upon the fruitful soil of freedom. We may add that this
   period is also the least known, because the official documents are few.
   In it all the elements of Christian greatness are manifest; in it are
   also present all the germs of error and enslavement which the following
   age will develop.

   Interest in the glorious past of the Church is reviving in our day on
   every hand. Even in a literary point of view, there are few themes more
   fertile and more attractive. For ourselves, while we do not overlook
   this aspect of our subject, our great desire is to bring once more into
   the full light of day those immortal truths of Christianity, of which
   our age, even while it repudiates them, feels such a mighty need. We
   have observed singular analogies between this our generation and that
   Roman society which concealed so much corruption under a glittering
   gloss, and so many aspirations after the future under the mask of an
   ill-assured incredulity. Our faith in the divinity of Christianity is
   deep and absolute; it has inspired this book; it has never, however,
   laid any fetters on our freedom of examination. We believe because we
   have examined; and we have been careful, in our historical criticism,
   to set aside all preconceived ideas. We have endeavored to recognize
   always the sovereign authority of history—that is to say, of facts
   accepted as we find them before they have undergone any transformation
   from the spirit of system. We have faithfully stated the result of our
   researches on all points, ever remembering that our duty here on earth
   is not to take the mean of opinions received in one quarter or another,
   but to speak out all the truth as it appears to us. We may say,
   further, that we have not brought the paltry prepossessions of
   sectarians into the history of the ancient Church. We have pointed out
   its errors and blemishes, while we have done justice to its pure and
   primal glory; nor have we turned aside from the Church of the Fathers,
   to seek in some inaccessible hiding-place an unbroken tradition of
   spotless orthodoxy. In every period of its history—the first alone
   excepted—we find the visible Church in all its manifestations far below
   its own ideal. And yet, while we hold fast out preferences, we rejoice
   to repeat the ancient adage, Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia. This is no
   reason, however, why the Church should not aspire to rise higher and
   higher toward its ideal; to realize that is ever increasingly its true
   idea. May it succeed in our day less imperfectly than in the past, and,
   casting aside all human trammels, and the darkness which clings around
   them, become conformed, both in doctrine and organization, to the very
   apostolic type! Most needful is such preparation for the impending
   conflict. Our highest wish will be fulfilled, if we may contribute in
   some measure to lead the Church back to its origin, as to the fountain
   of its life.

   The reproduction in English of this "History of the Early Years of
   Christianity" is not a mere translation of the French edition, but the
   presentation of that work in a considerably altered form. We have, in
   the first place, dispensed with the long introduction treating of the
   history of religions prior to Christianity, partly because this has
   already appeared separately in England, and partly because a very full
   résumé is given of it in our book on "The Life, Work, and Times of
   Jesus Christ," to which the present work may be regarded as a sequel.
   We have, further, endeavored to bring the English edition into a
   smaller compass than the French, without curtailing it in any necessary
   or important branch. By this means we have condensed into one volume
   the whole history of the apostolic age. The next volume will comprise
   all the great conflict of the Church with paganism, and will be
   entitled "The Martyrs and Confessors." We hope to give, in a concluding
   volume, the entire history of Christian thought and doctrine, treating
   of all that bears upon theological and ecclesiastical questions during
   the same period.

   The English work will thus have its own special character, and will be
   more concise than the French. By removing some branches from this
   rather overgrown forest, we hope to let in more light.

   Edmond de Pressensé.

   Paris, October 27, 1868.

   Note by the American Publishers.—By the above statement it will appear
   that our author's plan was to embrace the entire subject in three
   volumes. Upon further reflection, however, he has concluded that both
   the requisite fullness of treatment and the proper division of the
   matter demanded FOUR VOLUMES; and the publishers, both English and
   American, concur in his proposal. The topics of the FOUR VOLUMES will,
   therefore, be as follows: I. APOSTOLIC ERA. II. MARTYRS AND APOLOGISTS.
   III. DOCTRINE AND HERESIES. IV. THE CHURCH WORSHIP AND CHRISTIAN LIFE.
   The author's expectation is, that the French volume will be ready for
   the English translation in November, which will be forthwith followed
   by its issue from our press.
     __________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

  TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

   THE name of De Pressensé, the eminent leader of evangelical
   Protestantism in France, is favorably known in England and America by
   his published works, especially his "Life of Christ," and his "Religion
   and the Reign of Terror." By his clear maintenance of Christian truth,
   his ripe scholarship, his fresh and pictorial style, and the tone of
   modern liberality that pervades his firm conservatism in behalf of
   fundamental verities, he has placed himself in the highest rank of
   modern defenders of the primitive Christian faith. Had he, like Renan,
   the advantage of the zest of opposition to ancient opinions, and of a
   factitious originality, arising from an unrestrained liberty of
   shaping, coloring, and grouping the facts and characters of history to
   his own fancy, Pressensé could bring to the work an insight not less
   clear, and a style not less vivid. But he holds himself solemnly bound
   to TRUTH alone, whether that truth be marvelous and picturesque, or
   commonplace and brown. Yet truth, like wisdom, is justified of her
   children. She is infinitely valuable for her own sake; she is often
   capable of an ever-varying freshness as viewed by successive ages; and
   the truths which Pressensé unfolds must forever possess for the earnest
   spirit an unsurpassable interest and an eternal youth.

   While maintaining evangelical truth in its true spirit, Pressensé, with
   a genuine Protestant freedom, expresses individual views from which
   many devout Christians dissent, and in regard to which the publishers
   are not to be held as expressing opinions. He adopts, for instance the
   view of Van Oosterzee and others in regard to the divine nature of
   Christ, modifies the Anselmian theory of the atonement, and strenuously
   maintains immersion to be the sole mode of New Testament baptism. Some
   of the views furnish grounds even for denominational differences; but
   Pressensé speaks from that elevated stand-point which may induce even
   those who differ from him to give him a liberal hearing.

   We may add, that this is the only edition issued from the press in this
   country, and that it is printed by agreement with an English publishing
   house, under the proper arrangements with the author and translator.
     __________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS.

   First Century—Book First.

  FIRST PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE, FROM PENTECOST TO THE COUNCIL OF
  JERUSALEM.—A.D. 30-50.

                              CHAPTER I.
                COMMENCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

   Character of the Church—Special character of the Apostolic
   Church—Periods of its history
   23

   § I. Actual foundation of the Church on the Day of Pentecost—Its First
   Mission and First Persecution—Miracle of Pentecost—Character and Office
   of St. Peter—His reputed Primacy—Success of the First Mission—First
   Persecution
   28

   § II. The Teaching and First Constitution of the Church at
   Jerusalem—Attacks made upon the young Church—First apology of
   Christianity—the Miracles—Scriptural evidence—Appeal to the
   conscience—Doctrine of the Primitive Church—Ecclesiastical
   organization—Nature of the Apostolate—Conditions of admission into the
   Church—Worship of the Primitive Church—General character of this period
   42
                             CHAPTER II.
   FIRST INTERNAL CONFLICT, AND FIRST EXTENSION OF THE CHURCH BEYOND
   JERUSALEM.

   § I. The Seven Deacons of the Church at Jerusalem—Stephen—First Debate
   in the Church—The Primitive Diaconate—Stephen the precursor of St.
   Paul—Accusation brought against Stephen—His speech—His martyrdom—Saul
   of Tarsus, the witness of his noble death
   54

   § II. The Dispersion of the Christians—The Gospel in Samaria—Simon
   Magus—Philip and the Eunuch—Philip at Samaria —Hatred of the Jews to
   the Samaritans—Dositheus—Simon Magus—His influence in Samaria—His
   doctrine, according to the "Philosophoumena"—Effect of Philip's
   preaching—The Apostles at Samaria—Simon desires to purchase the Holy
   Ghost—Consequences of the Mission in Samaria—Conversion of the
   Ethiopian Eunuch
   64

   III. Foundation of the Church at Antioch, and Conversion of the
   Centurion Cornelius—The Church of Antioch founded by simple
   Evangelists—Peter and Cornelius.
   75

   IV. The Church at Jerusalem at the time of the First Mission beyond
   Judæa—The Christians at Jerusalem still Judaizing —Discussion between
   them and Peter—Creation of the office of Elders—The Elders of the
   Synagogue—Their equality—The Elders of the Church are also equal among
   themselves—Martyrdom of James, the son of Zebedee—Imprisonment of
   Peter—Death of Herod—Part taken by James, the Lord's brother—Importance
   of the Church at Jerusalem
   82
                             CHAPTER III.
                CONVERSION OF PAUL. HIS FIRST MISSION.

   § I. Saul of Tarsus—His Preparation and Conversion—His Preparation—Saul
   at Tarsus—He goes to Jerusalem—Is a disciple of Gamaliel—His
   sincerity—His zeal for the Law—His moral malady—His contact with
   Stephen—Saul the persecutor—Journey to Damascus—He is overthrown by the
   way—The three days at Damascus—Saul in Arabia—Return to Jerusalem—Saul
   at Antioch I Character of the Apostolate of St. Paul
   95

   § II. St. Paul's first Journey—His first Companions—Conversion of
   Sergius Paulus—Paul at Antioch in Pisidia—His Sermon—Obduracy of the
   Jews—Paul and Barnabas at Lystra—Paul is stoned—Return of Paul
   116
                             CHAPTER IV.
    THE TWO CONFERENCES AT JERUSALEM, AND THE DISPUTE AT ANTIOCH.

   § I. The Two Conferences—Origin of Polemics—Difficulties in the Church
   at Antioch—The Private Conference—The Public Conference—Speech of
   Peter—Speech of Paul—Speech of James —Decisions of the Conference—It
   concludes with a Compromise
   125

   § II. Dispute at Antioch
   138

   First Century—Book Second.

  SECOND PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.—THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH UP TO THE DEATH OF
  ST. PAUL, FROM A.D. 50 TO 65.

                                 CHAPTER I.
          MISSIONS OF THE CHURCH UP TO THE CAPTIVITY OF ST. PAUL.

   § I. Second Missionary Journey of St. Paul—Paul the type of the
   Missionary—He separates from Barnabas and takes Timothy—Epaphras founds
   the Church at Ephesus—The Gospel carried to the Galatians—He passes
   from the East to the West—Foundation of the Philippian Church—Paul and
   Silas in Prison—Conversion of the Jailer—Paul at Thessalonica—Success
   and Persecutions—Paul at Athens—The Altar of the Unknown God—Discourse
   of the Apostle on the Areopagus—Paul at Corinth—Corruption of that
   City—A Church founded there—Paul there writes the Two Epistles to the
   Thessalonians—His vow —He goes to Ephesus—Conversion of Apollos
   143

   § II. Third Missionary Journey of St. Paul—Sojourn of Paul at Ephesus,
   then the focus of the Religions of the East—He there writes the Epistle
   to the Galatians—There he meets with Disciples of John the Baptist, and
   Jewish exorcists—Effects of his preaching—Voyage of Paul to Crete and
   Corinth—The Epistle to Titus, and the first Epistle to Timothy, written
   during this journey—Return to Ephesus—First Epistle to the
   Corinthians—Tumult raised against Paul—Second Journey into
   Macedonia—Second Epistle to the Corinthians—Presentiments of Captivity
   and Death—Return Journey to Jerusalem—Paul at Troas—His farewell at
   Miletus to the Elders from Ephesus—Paul at Cæsarea Prophecy of
   Agabus—Arrival at Jerusalem—Paul is arrested in the Temple—His Speech
   and Imprisonment
   169
                                CHAPTER II.
   MISSIONS AND PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHURCH FROM THE CAPTIVITY OF ST. PAUL
   TO HIS DEATH AND THAT OF ST. PETER.

   § I. Various phases of the Captivity of Paul—Paul before the
   Sanhedrim—He is transferred to Cæsarea—He appears before Felix
   —Mildness of his Captivity—He writes the Epistles to the Ephesians,
   Colossians, and to Philemon—Festus takes the place of Felix—Paul
   appears to the Emperor—He appears before Festus and Agrippa—Arrival of
   Paul at Rome—He enjoys a measure of freedom —He preaches the Gospel to
   the Jews, and to his Jailers —He writes the Epistle to the
   Philippians—He appears before Nero—The Second Epistle to Timothy is
   Paul's Testament—General character of the Apostle's Missions to the
   Gentiles
   189

   § II. Missions of the other Apostles during this period—James continues
   to reside at Jerusalem—Jude in Phrygia—Missions of Andrew, Philip,
   Matthew, Bartholomew, Matthias, Simon, Zelotes, Judas Thaddeus, and
   Thomas—Peter at Babylon—His letter to the Christians in Asia Minor—He
   goes to Rome—Was never a Bishop—Mark founds the Church of Alexandria
   204

   § III. Method of Primitive Evangelization—Origin of the First Three
   Gospels—The Primitive Church not concerned with the writing of
   Books—The Living Word preferred to the Written—No Primitive Official
   Gospel—The memory of Christ living in the Church—The part of Christian
   experience in memorizing the great facts of Salvation—Written
   records—Apocryphal and Synoptical Gospels—Superiority of the
   latter—Their origin—They bear the seal of Inspiration—Living character
   of this Inspiration
   216

   § IV. The First Roman Persecution of Christianity—Persecution in
   Judæa—Death of James, the brother of the Lord—The Religious
   Constitution of Society in the Ancient World conducive to
   Persecution—Ancient Religions, State Religions—Special circumstances
   which render Persecution inevitable—Foreign Religions regarded with
   suspicion by the Cæsars—The Church confounded with the Synagogue—The
   holiness of Christians hateful to the Pagans—Calumnies against
   Christianity—Rapid growth of the Church of Rome—Persecution
   popular—Part of Nero in this Persecution—Martyrdom of St. Paul and St.
   Peter—Martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord, at Jerusalem
   220
                                CHAPTER III.
   VARIOUS FORMS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IN THE SECOND PERIOD OF THE
   APOSTOLIC AGE.

   § I. Fundamental Unity in Diversity—Refutation of the system of
   Baur—Unity prevails over Diversity—Three great types of doctrine appear
   at this period
   233

   § II. Doctrine of James—His characteristic idea is the permanence of
   moral obligation under the new covenant —Faith joined with Works—Love
   is pre-eminently the Work—The nature of Pardon clearly expressed—The
   Gospel History constantly presupposed—Moral importance of the Epistle
   of James
   241

   III. Doctrinal Type of Peter—The First Two Gospels—The Gospel is to
   Peter, first of all, the fulfillment of Prophecy—Comforting view opened
   of the abode of the Dead—The Gospel of Mark recalls the type of
   Peter—That of Matthew represents the doctrine of Peter and James
   247

   § IV. Doctrine of St. Paul—Polemical character of his teaching—The
   essential feature of Paul's doctrine is the agreement of the Religious
   and Moral Elements—The first idea in his Theology is the idea of
   Justice—Justice the principle of all religion—The Fall a violation by
   the Creature of the Laws of Eternal Justice—Universality of the
   Condemnation—Various elements in fallen Man—The Body not the principle
   of Evil—Sin is a Transgression—The decree of Salvation a free act of
   Grace—It is not the Predestination of Augustine or of Calvin—Chapter ix
   of the Epistle to the Romans—Preparation for Salvation—Preparation in
   Judaism—The Patriarchal age—The Law a Schoolmaster to bring to
   Christ—Preparation in Paganism—Redemption—Nature of the
   Redeemer—Divinity and Subordination of the Son of God—His Humanity—He
   is the second Adam—Work of the Redeemer—Redemption is primarily an act
   of Obedience—Obedience in Suffering—The Death of Christ is a Free
   Sacrifice—The theory of Anselm is not to be found in St. Paul—Jesus
   Christ, raised from the Dead, sends the Holy Spirit—Appropriation of
   Salvation—Faith, a real Union with Jesus Christ—Justification and
   Sanctification—Close relation between the two—The Church—Kingdom of
   Good opposed to Kingdom of Evil—Future of the World and the
   Church—Judgment, Resurrection—Groaning of the Creation after
   Redemption—Connection of the two Covenants—The Law of the Letter and of
   the Spirit—Apology of St. Paul—His doctrine reproduces the Teaching of
   Jesus Christ
   254

   § V. God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for all
   271

   § VI. The Gospel of Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews—The gospel of
   Luke reproduces the doctrinal type of Paul—The same is the case with
   the Epistle to the Hebrews, which adds the allegorical element ot the
   Alexandrine school
   292
                                CHAPTER IV.
   THE STATE OF THE CHURCHES DURING THIS PERIOD. FIRST SYMPTOMS OF HERESY.

   § I. Judaizing tendency in the Churches of Palestine, Galatia,
   Macedonia, Achaia, and Italy—History of the Church at
   Jerusalem—Judæo-Christianity is there at first kept within bounds—It
   becomes more decided after death of James—Melancholy condition of the
   other Churches of Palestine—Judaizing reaction in Palestine—False
   teachers there combat the influence of Paul—Church of that Country
   returns to St. Paul—False Teachers at Philippi—Millenarian views at
   Thessalonica—Church at Rome —Converts from Paganism are there the most
   numerous—Church of Corinth—Four Parties—Defeat of Judæo-Christianity
   299

   § II. Dualistic heresies in Crete, Colosse, and Ephesus—Heresy of Simon
   Magus, according to the "Philosophoumena"—Heresies of Colosse, Ephesus,
   and the Isle of Crete—Ascetic Dualism—Abuse of the Scriptures—Medley of
   Judaism and Orientalism—Grievous consequences of these errors on the
   Christian life
   317
                                 CHAPTER V.
              CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCHES DURING THIS PERIOD.

   § I. General Principles of Ecclesiastical Organization—Distinction
   between the Church Visible and the Church Invisible—No "Mother
   Church"—No Representative Assemblies—No Center of Unity—Unity of
   Churches entirely Moral—The Church is the Company of Christians—Is
   entered by Individual Adherence
   331

   § II. Gifts and offices—Gift of Tongues—Gifts of Prophecy and
   Healing—Gift of Teaching exercised by all Christians—Power of the Keys
   belongs to them—No Clerical Consecration of the Sacraments—Priesthood
   universal—Identity of Elders and Bishops—Only one category of
   Elders—Ministry of the Word not placed by itself—Maintenance of the
   Elders—The Deacon—Deaconesses—All Offices filled by Election—Imposition
   of Hands is not Ordination—Offices are Ministries
   338
                                CHAPTER VI.
                      WORSHIP AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.

   § I. Christian Worship during this period—Spirituality of the New
   Worship: no Priesthood; no Temples; no Holy Days—Sunday not the
   Sabbath—Acts of Worship—Teaching—Old Testament still the Holy
   Book—Faithfulness in Teaching required
   Prayer—Thanksgiving—Song—Sacraments—Baptism linked to Faith; has no
   connection with Circumcision; not administered to Children—The
   Communion: Mode of celebration—Ecclesiastical Discipline—Apostolic Age
   knew no other Sacraments than Baptism and Lord's Supper—Anointing with
   Oil—Burial of the Dead
   361

   § II. Christian Life—Primitive Christianity cannot act directly in all
   the domains which it is to subdue in course of time—No Opposition
   between Church and State—The two Institutions unfit to be Separated—No
   Opposition between Christianity and Art—Creation of a Ideal by the
   Gospel—Characteristics of Individual Piety —Manual Labor
   Ennobled—Asceticism—Christian Family —Christianity and Slavery—Latter
   is morally Abolished—Charity Born upon Earth with Christianity—Relation
   of Christians to the World—Power of the Holiness of the First
   Christians
   381

   First Century—Book Third.

  PERIOD OF ST. JOHN, OR CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

   CHAPTER I.
   THE FALL OF JERUSALEM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

   § I. Destruction of the Holy City—Roman Tyranny in Judæa —First
   Revolt—Commencement of the Siege—Forebodings of the Divine
   Chastisement—The Three Factions—Growing Horror of the Siege —Taking of
   the City—Burning of the Temple
   399

   § II. Consequences to the Church of the Destruction of the
   Temple—Enlargement of Prophetic Views—Need of a Fixed Organization—No
   Second Council at Jerusalem—The Synagogue formally Excommunicates the
   Church—Origin of Ebionitism
   406
   CHAPTER II.
   ST. JOHN, THE APOSTLE AND PROPHET.

   § I. Life of St. John—Tardiness of the Influence of St. John explained
   by the Nature of his Gifts and Mission—Conversion and Growth of John—He
   Ripens in Obscurity—John at Ephesus —He writes the Revelation before
   the Gospel—Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of John—Last Years of the
   Apostle
   415

   § II. John, the Prophet of the new Covenant—The Revelation—The same
   Doctrine in the Gospel and Revelation—General Point of View of the Book
   of Revelation—Future represented through the medium of Contemporary
   History—Plan of the Book—Arrangement of the Apocalypse—It proceeds on
   the same Plan as the Prophecy of Jesus Christ, Matt. xxiv —Prediction
   of the Fall of Rome—Conflict of the Church with Heresy—Fall of Rome
   typifies the End of the World—Nero the Symbol of Antichrist—Final
   Triumph of the Church—The End—Prophecy advances with History
   430
   CHAPTER III.
   THE DOCTRINE OF ST. JOHN.

   § I. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—God is Love—The Son, the Eternal
   object of the Divine Love—Subordination of the Son to the Father—The
   Holy Spirit
   443

   § II. The Word and the World—Part taken by the Word in
   Creation—Relation between Man and the Word—The Fall—Sin, the Violation
   of Law—The Fall is not Absolute
   447

   § III. The Word and Redemption—Preparatory Work of the Word—The
   Attraction of the Father—The Incarnation—Redemption—The Invisible
   Christ
   450

   § IV. The Word in the Christian and in the Church until the end of
   time—Appropriation of Salvation—Grace—Faith: justifying and
   sanctifying—The Future of the Church
   458
   CHAPTER IV.
   THE CHURCHES IN THE TIME OF ST. JOHN.

   § I. External Condition—Persecution under Domitian
   464

   § II. Internal Condition of the Churches—Heresies—Church
   Organization—State of the Churches—Diminution of
   Piety—Heresy—Commencement of Docetism—The
   Nicolaitans—Cerinthus—Ecclesiastical Organization—John not the Founder
   of Episcopacy—Worship—Celebration of the Feasts—The Sabbath —The
   Passover—End of the Apostolic Age
   468
   NOTES.
   Note A. Literature of the Subject 481
   Note B. The Chronology of the Acts 484
   Note C. Principal Source of the History of the Primitive Church 486
   Note D. The Miracle of Pentecost 489
   Note E. The Council of Jerusalem 490
   Note F. The Supposed Second Captivityof St. Paul 492
   Note G. The Epistle of St. Paul 495
   Note H. The Epistles of James and Jude 496
   Note I. The Second Epistle of Peter 497
   Note J. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews 498
   Note K. Diversity of views on Theology of the Apostolic Age 499
   Note L. The Authenticity and the Date of the Apocalypse 500

   Note M. The Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel and of the Epistles of
   St. John
   509
     __________________________________________________________________

EARLY YEARS

    OF THE

                             CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [1]
     __________________________________________________________________

BOOK FIRST.

  THE FIRST PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE, FROM PENTECOST TO THE COUNCIL OF
  JERUSALEM, A. D. 30-50.See Note B, on the Chronology of the Acts.
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER I.

    COMMENCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [2]

   JESUS CHRIST came to restore the kingdom of God upon earth. He came not
   simply to offer salvation to every individual man. It was his design to
   found a holy community, from which, as from a new humanity
   reconstituted by him, filled with his Spirit and living by his life,
   the Gospel should go forth into all the world. The holy community thus
   founded is the Christian Church. It differs from all the religious
   institutions which preceded it. It is not limited, like the Jewish
   theocracy, to one special nation; it is not bounded by the frontiers of
   any land. It forms the kingdom which is not of this world, and which is
   destined to triumph over all the powers of earth leagued against it.
   Placed beyond the external conditions of Judaism, the Church is
   primarily a moral and spiritual fact, the character of which is
   essentially supernatural. Born of a miracle, by a miracle it lives.
   Founded upon the great miracle of redemption, it grows and is
   perpetuated by the ever-repeated miracle of conversion. It is entered,
   not by the natural way of birth, but by the supernatural way of the new
   birth. Resting upon free convictions, the Church—the holy community of
   souls—wins them one by one, and conquers them in a hard struggle with
   the world and with themselves; it requires from each one an adherence,
   which implies the sacrifice of the will. It makes the most powerful
   appeal to the individual, just because it addresses itself to all the
   race. The Church, resting on no national or theocratic basis, must
   gather its adherents simply by individual conviction, and such a basis
   alone corresponds with the breadth of Christianity, because it alone
   places the Church beyond the narrow bounds of nationalities and of
   territorial circumscription. In truth, setting aside in man the
   contingent of race and distinctions of birth, all that remains is the
   moral personality, the individual soul to be brought into direct
   contact with God. Individuality is therefore the widest conceivable
   basis for a religious community. When Jesus Christ sent forth to the
   conquest of the world the few disciples whom he had gathered around
   him, and who formed the nucleus of the Church, he by that act abrogated
   the old theocratic distinctions, and implicitly founded the new
   community, in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor
   uncircumcision.

   Strange conquerors, we must own, are these Galilean fishermen, without
   repute, without learning, the poorest of the poor, sent forth in their
   simplicity into the midst of a state of society in which dazzling
   splendor is combined with a power hitherto irresistible. Brute force
   will be let loose upon them, and they have neither might nor right to
   meet force with force; their weapons are to be of the Spirit only.
   Reviled and persecuted, they must offer no other resistance than the
   fortitude of their patience and the vigor of their faith; for let them
   at all avenge themselves on their adversaries, and they will do
   themselves irremediable wrong by dishonoring and striking a death-blow
   to their own principle. They are not suffered for one moment to forget
   that their strength comes from that higher and invisible world, of
   which they are the representatives upon earth, and which is at once
   their fatherland and their goal.

   The Christian Church has a double vocation. It is called first to
   assimilate to itself more and more closely the teaching and the life of
   its divine Founder, to be joined to him by tender and sacred bonds, to
   grow in knowledge, in charity, in holiness. It is then to carry
   every-where the light and flame thus kindled and fed in the sanctuary
   of the soul, so that it may illuminate and vivify the world. To purify
   itself within, and to extend itself without, such is the twofold task
   of the Church, and the ages are given for its fulfillment.

   There is, however, one period of its history which claims to be
   distinguished from the rest—namely, the apostolic age. Its peculiar
   mission was to preserve to the world the living memory of Christ. The
   primitive Church is of necessity the medium between us and him; through
   it alone can we know him; it is to us as the channel which conveys the
   water from the fountain. It is endowed, therefore, with the gifts
   necessary for the fulfillment of this mission. Of these gifts two
   especially are peculiar to it. It is the Church of the apostolate, and
   the Church of inspiration. On the one hand, it is the direct witness of
   Christ; on the other, it has received the Spirit of God in
   extraordinary measure, to enable it to lay a solid foundation upon
   which the Church of all ages may be built up. Our task is to study
   closely these two great facts of the apostolic age.

   We say at once, that neither by the apostolate nor by inspiration was
   the primitive Church spared the salutary labor of the assimilation of
   the truth. It is a grave mistake to suppose that a definite
   constitution was given to the Church from its very commencement, by
   decrees promulgated by the Apostles, and that it was at once lifted on
   the wings of inspiration to the luminous height from which,
   subsequently, the eye of a St. Paul and a St. John surveyed the whole
   extent of the Gospel revelation. Many conflicts, many dissensions, many
   lessons of experience were to precede and to prepare this closing
   period of the apostolic age, which was the result and crown of all.

   The revelations of the Old and New Testament were always given
   progressively, because it was the will of God to establish a real
   harmony between the truths which he communicated and the soul by which
   they were received. This inward, penetrating, progressive action of the
   Divine Spirit, reaching its ends without doing any violence to human
   nature, is far more beautiful than any sudden and irresistible
   operation. Between the two methods there is all the' difference between
   grace and magic. Every one who admits that the ideal of the new
   covenant shines forth resplendent in the person of the God-Man, must
   equally admit that the complete blending of the human with the divine
   element is the great consummation of the Gospel design. This, which is
   to be the aim of every age, finds its first perfect realization in the
   age of the Apostles. Their era, therefore, may be regarded as having
   furnished, as it were, the theme of the history of the Church; for that
   history is but a free and vigorous development of the great results
   gained in the first century. The first subject, then, for our
   consideration, is this normal and ideal union of the human and the
   divine element in the life of the primitive Church.

   We shall divide its history into three periods, each of these
   designated by the name of the apostle who exercised the greatest
   influence upon it. We have thus the period of St. Peter, that of St.
   Paul, and that of St. John.

   In the first, the divine element predominates almost to the exclusion
   of the human, which is, in comparison, reduced to passivity. This is
   the period of the purely supernatural; it follows the first outpouring
   of the Holy Spirit, and precedes the great internal deliberations in
   the Church. In the second and third, the human element is more
   apparent, though always controlled and purified by the divine: great
   questions are stated and debated, Church organization begins, doctrine
   becomes more defined, and if miracles are still many, they are less
   abundant than before. The latter fact, so far from implying any
   inferiority in the closing periods of the apostolic age, seems to us to
   mark a real superiority. For in truth, when the supernatural element is
   so infused into human nature that it animates it, as the soul the body,
   it may be said that the union between God and man is fully realized,
   and the most glorious results of redemption achieved.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § I. Actual Foundation of the Church on the Day of Pentecost. Its First
   Mission and First Persecution.

   Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, during the
   celebration at Jerusalem of the Feast of Pentecost, which was the feast
   of the ingathering, [3] the Holy Spirit came down upon the apostles and
   disciples, assembled to the number of a hundred and twenty in an upper
   chamber. Some representatives of the sacerdotal theory—always disposed
   to confine the Spirit of God to his sanctuaries—have maintained that
   this place, consecrated by so glorious an event, formed a part of the
   large attached buildings of the Temple at Jerusalem. [4] But this is an
   entirely gratuitous hypothesis, of which the text bears no trace. The
   Holy Spirit breathes where he will, and does not suffer himself to be
   restricted to any religious institution. The Pentecostal miracle was,
   moreover, the inauguration of the glorious era foretold by Jesus
   Christ, when adoration should be no longer associated with certain
   sacred edifices, but when the whole world should become again the
   temple of God. We must carefully distinguish, in this miracle, the
   religious fact from the attendant circumstances and figurative symbols.
   The "mighty rushing wind," the tongues like as of fire, which rest upon
   the Apostles' heads, are sublime types of the inward miracle: the wind
   symbolizes the invisible action and sovereign freedom of the Divine
   Spirit, (John iii, 8;) the fire its purifying virtue, (Isaiah vi, 6,
   7;) and the form under which this fire appeared suggests its chief mode
   of operation in the moral world. Speech is, in truth, as has been well
   said, a divine eloquence which sways human freedom. Speech is the
   noblest medium between the Creator and the creature; as between the
   creatures themselves, by it the Gospel is to fight and conquer. We
   fully admit the marvelous character of that scene in the upper chamber
   at Jerusalem. The sovereign God, who rules in the world of nature no
   less than in the world of spirit and of grace, has undoubtedly the
   right to borrow from the former effective symbols to set forth to the
   eye the great facts of the latter. "He maketh the winds his angels, and
   the flames of fire his ministers." Heb. i, 7. We must rise at once,
   however, from the sign to the thing signified. In this, as in every
   other instance, the miracle belongs essentially to the moral and
   invisible world. It is wrought in the hearts of the disciples, who,
   according to the testimony of sacred history, "were all filled with the
   Holy Ghost." Acts ii, 4. They had already received it in a measure, but
   they were not entirely filled with it till then. All the barriers
   between earth and heaven were removed. The fullness of God could now
   fill the human soul; by the Holy Spirit God himself could henceforth
   inhabit this living sanctuary, and the promise of the spiritual return
   of Christ was abundantly realized. Until this time, the young Church
   might be compared to a ship ready to depart, its sails spread for the
   wind. The breath from on high now blows upon it; it is no longer an
   inert mass, it is an animated body; it may set forth on its flight over
   all seas, and be they stormy or calm, it shall be ever advancing toward
   its appointed haven. This first outpouring of the Spirit of God was not
   restricted to the Apostles, for the sacred writer declares that all who
   were in the upper chamber were filled with it. Nor was it a simple
   illumination of the understanding: the Holy Ghost was first and most
   sensibly shed abroad in the hearts of the primitive Christians. His
   influence went down at once to the very center of their moral and
   religious life, that it might assimilate to itself one by one all their
   faculties. But this assimilation was not realized in a moment. They did
   not in one brief instant acquire all knowledge. That which they already
   knew was quickened, while the Spirit went on day by day to enrich them
   with understanding, and to "lead them into all truth." John xvi, 13.

   His presence in their midst was marked by one miracle more
   extraordinary than those which had preceded it. The disciples began to
   speak in unknown tongues. This miracle, which, with some modifications,
   is repeated several times in the apostolic age, was in harmony with the
   essential character of this period, which we have called the period of
   the purely supernatural. The human element seems to pale and succumb in
   its first contact with the divine. The Spirit of God, on its descent
   from heaven, finds human language a vessel too small to contain it. The
   ordinary forms of speech are broken through; a language which is beyond
   all known forms takes the place of ordinary words. It is the burning,
   mysterious tongue of ecstasy. Thus we regard those unknown tongues, of
   which mention is made in the Church of the first century. To speak in
   an unknown tongue, was to use that ineffable language which has no
   analogue in human speech. The Pentecostal miracle had a special
   character, by which it was distinguished from kindred miracles; the
   disciples were understood by all who ran together on the first tidings
   of the prodigy wrought in the upper chamber. Was there in this
   exceptional language a marvelous power, which went from soul to soul,
   and triumphed over the diversity of idioms? or did these Jews, gathered
   at Jerusalem from all parts of the world, really catch the accents of
   their various dialects? The problem is beyond solution. It is, however,
   certain that the miracle, at least under this special form, was of no
   permanent character. Irenæus and Tertullian have erroneously asserted
   that the early Christians retained the use of the gift of tongues, and
   employed it in carrying the Gospel to the nations of the world. [5] The
   style of the sacred writers clearly shows that they had learned the
   Greek language in an ordinary manner, and did not possess it by
   miraculous gift and by inspiration, for they wrote it incorrectly, and
   in a form surcharged with Hebraisms. We know also that Peter had an
   interpreter at Rome. [6] St. Paul seems not to have understood the
   language of the inhabitants of Lystra and Derbe, who wished to
   sacrifice to him as to a god. Acts xiv, 11-14.

   The miracle of Pentecost was an enacted prophecy of the happy time when
   all the diversities created by evil will be lost in the unity of love.
   Is not this prophecy receiving a constant fulfillment as Christianity
   masters, one after another, the languages of mankind, and makes them
   the media for conveying its immortal truths? "The Church in her
   humility," says the venerable Bede, "re-forms the unity of language
   broken before by pride." [7]

   We know with what success Peter replied to the raillery of some
   unbelieving Jews, who had found their way into the wondering crowd.
   Three thousand persons were won to the Church by that first preaching
   of the Apostle. This rapid increase was soon to bring about an open
   rupture between the young Church and Judaism. The Sadducean party took
   the lead in the persecution. It has been declared to be very unlikely
   that the Pharisees, who had been the most bitter enemies of Jesus
   Christ, would have let themselves be thus outstripped by their rivals.
   [8] But it must not be forgotten that at this period the Church had not
   yet comprehended the doctrine of Christ in all its issues. It had not
   yet broken the outward bond with Judaism. The point on which it
   insisted most strongly was the resurrection of the dead; now this dogma
   was particularly odious to the Sadducees. Annas and Caiaphas, who
   presided over the council before which the Apostles were cited, were
   the well-known leaders of the Roman or Sadducean party. Acts v, 17. The
   only judge who showed himself impartial toward the Church was the
   Pharisee Gamaliel.

   During all this early time the influence of the Apostle Peter
   predominates. The part thus taken by him has been urged as a proof of
   his primacy. But on closer examination it will be seen that he does but
   exercise his natural gifts, purified and ennobled by the Divine Spirit.
   Peter was the son of a fisherman named Jonas, of the village of
   Bethsaida, in Galilee. Matt. xvi, 17; John i, 44. He was among the
   disciples of John the Baptist, and was thus prepared to respond
   favorably to the call of Jesus Christ. He soon received his vocation as
   an apostle. His disposition was quick and ardent, but his zeal was
   blended with presumption and pride. Living in constant contact with the
   Master, as one of the three disciples who enjoyed his closest intimacy,
   he conceived for him a strong affection. His impetuous nature was,
   however, far from being brought at once under control. He had noble
   impulses, like that which prompted his grand testimony to the Saviour:
   "Thou art the Christ of God." Matt. xvi, 16. But he was also actuated
   by many an earthly motive, which drew down upon him the Master's sharp
   reproach. Once, under the influence of Jewish prejudice, he repelled
   with indignation the idea of the humiliating death of Christ. At
   another time he was eager to appear more courageous than all the other
   disciples, and again yielding to his natural impetuosity, he drew his
   sword to defend Him whose "kingdom is not of this world." It was
   needful that the yet incoherent elements of his moral nature should be
   thrown into the crucible of trial. His shameful fall resulted in a
   decisive moral crisis, which commenced in that moment when, pierced to
   the heart by the look of Christ, he went out of the court of the high
   priest and wept bitterly. He appears entirely changed in the last
   interview he has with the Saviour on the shores of the Lake of
   Tiberias. Jesus Christ restores him after his threefold denial, by
   calling forth a threefold confession of his love. John xxi, 15.

   Nothing but determined prejudice could construe the tender solicitude
   of the Master for this disciple into an official declaration of his
   primacy. We are here in the region of feeling alone, not on the
   standing ground of right and legal institutions. Nor has the primacy of
   Peter any more real foundation in the famous passage, "Tu es Petrus."
   Jesus Christ admirably characterized by this image the ardent and
   generous nature of his disciple, and that courage of the pioneer which
   marked him out as the first laborer in the foundation of the primitive
   Church. The son of Jonas was its most active founder, and, as it were,
   its first stone. He was also the rock against which the first tempest
   from without spent its fury. [9] Beyond this, the narrative of St. Luke
   lends no countenance to any hierarchical notions.

   Every thing is natural and spontaneous in the conduct of St. Peter. He
   is not official president of a sort of apostolic college. He acts only
   with the concurrence of his brethren, whether in the choice of a new
   apostle, [10] or at Pentecost, [11] or before the Sanhedrim. Peter had
   been the most deeply humbled of the disciples, therefore he was the
   first to be exalted. John's part being at this time inconspicuous, no
   other apostle is named with Peter, because he fills the whole scene
   with his irrepressible zeal and indefatigable activity.

   The Christian mission during this period gained two altogether
   exceptional successes. A few weeks after the baptism of the three
   thousand converts of the day of Pentecost, five thousand souls were
   added to the Church as the result of the miraculous healing of the
   impotent man, and of another sermon of St. Peter. Acts iv, 4. The
   Church continued for a long time rapidly to receive adherents in
   numbers scarcely less surprising. This first offensive movement of
   Christianity was accomplished with a holy impetuosity and joyous
   enthusiasm. It has been asserted that the number of the conversions is
   too enormous not to indicate a mythical character in the sacred
   narrative. [12] Such an assertion does not take into account the
   extraordinary zeal displayed by the first Christians, the powerful
   inspiration by which they were animated, and the impressive miracles
   which accompanied their preaching. Acts v, 15, 16.

   It would be a mistake also to imagine that all these new converts had
   reached the same stage of religious development. They differed in piety
   and in knowledge, but they had nevertheless received the Gospel with
   sincerity. In a short time the Church had gathered into itself more
   than ten thousand persons. This was assuredly a miracle not less
   amazing than that of the day of Pentecost.

   To these triumphs Judaism replied by persecution. The Church has had
   time, during eighteen centuries, to become accustomed to this brutal
   and senseless appeal to force. We need not here dwell on the
   constitution of the Sanhedrim. We know that it was composed of
   seventy-one members, that it was presided over by the High Priest, and
   that from the time of the Roman conquest it constituted the religious
   tribunal of the nation. It was not always possible to distinguish with
   clearness the religious sphere from the civil, so closely had the two
   been united in the old theocracy. The Sanhedrim naturally assumed as
   its right to summon to its bar any who attacked the religion of the
   country. Now the apostolic preaching appeared, in the eyes of those who
   regarded Jesus Christ as a false prophet, to be an assault upon the
   national religion. A theocratic government is a government of
   constraint. Freedom of conscience would have been an unmeaning sound
   under the Jewish economy. But the abrogation of the ancient economy had
   abrogated the right of religious coercion. Persecution on the part of
   the Sanhedrim was now only an odious abuse of power. It must be further
   admitted that men like Annas and Caiaphas cared little for theocratic
   rights, for they belonged to the sect which repudiated the spirit of
   the ancient religion.

   This first persecution revealed the deep-seated enmity which exists
   between skeptical Materialism and the Gospel. We shall often have
   occasion, in the course of this history, to show how intolerant is
   incredulity, and how impatient of the freedom of sincere belief. We
   shall see that the Sadducean spirit is always essentially a persecuting
   spirit. At this time we find that the people were not, as subsequently,
   in favor of the adoption of violent measures against the Church, for
   the persecutors feared to offend the multitude by maltreating the
   Apostles. Acts v, 26.

   Immediately after the healing of the impotent man at the Beautiful Gate
   of the Temple, the magistrate in charge of the sanctuary, and who
   appears to have been a man of rank, since Josephus names him directly
   after the High Priest, [13] seizes Peter and John, and casts them into
   prison. A solemn meeting of the Sanhedrim is convoked, and the Apostles
   appear before this iniquitous tribunal, in which fanaticism sits side
   by side with skepticism. The grandeur of the scene is beyond
   description. The entire world is at this time held under terrible
   oppression. A heavy yoke bows the heads of all. Every effort has been
   made to break it—open revolt, treason, force, and cunning. But the
   chains have been only riveted the firmer upon the struggling race. Now,
   for the first time, despotism finds a barrier that will not break, and
   meets with invincible resistance. It must bend before these ignorant
   and unlearned men, who have no weapons of war in their hands, no
   inflammatory words on their lips, but who oppose an indomitable faith
   to all the threats hurled against them. In this first conflict between
   conscience and force victory remains with the former. This day is
   liberty born into the world, never to be destroyed.

   The president of the Sanhedrim asks Peter in what name he healed the
   impotent man. The Apostle replies with the utmost respect to the
   magistrates of his nation. He recognizes their authority like the most
   docile of their subordinates. Acts iv, 8. Peter is neither a rebel nor
   an agitator. He is a servant of God and of truth; therefore he is
   invincible upon the ground of religion. With what boldness does he
   avow, in the midst of that council, which a few days before had
   condemned Jesus Christ, the name of the crucified Lord! "If we be this
   day examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means
   he is made whole; be it known to you and to all the people of Israel,
   that by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God hath
   raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you
   whole." Acts iv, 8-10. The Sanhedrim deliberate on this reply, so firm
   and courageous. The result of their deliberation is to forbid the
   Apostles to speak or to teach in the name of Jesus. Acts iv, 18. By
   such a decision the first step is taken in the path of persecution. Had
   the judges of Peter and John gone no further than this prohibition they
   would have even then deserved the name of persecutors. To hinder the
   manifestation of a conviction, to restrain the efforts at proselytism
   made by a sincere faith, is to persecute the immortal soul; it is to
   deny its right, and to prepare the way for violent persecution, since
   conscience does not allow of concessions to fear or danger. A duty
   becomes all the more sacred when obstacles are placed in the way of its
   accomplishment. Disobedience to an unjust command is dictated by the
   same motives which, in the ordinary course of things, would lead to a
   scrupulous conformity to law. The Sanhedrim thought they were taking a
   safe and inoffensive step. From that step, however, they will be
   fatally led on to violent persecution. Peter and John appeal from the
   authority of this iniquitous tribunal to the authority of God himself
   and to his clear command: "Whether it be right in the sight of God,"
   they exclaim, "to obey you rather than God, judge ye." Socrates had
   made the same appeal before the Athenian judges. We admire it in the
   mouth of the great philosopher, but how is its power enhanced as the
   utterance of those who are guided not merely by the inspiration of a
   noble heart and a true genius, but by the light of revelation.

   The Apostles, as they had declared, pay no heed to an unjust
   prohibition. They resume their preaching with the same success as
   before. They are thrown into prison. Miraculously set at large, they
   begin again to proclaim the Gospel. Cited anew before the Sanhedrim,
   they preserve the same attitude. They are calm and immovable, as
   becomes the disciples of that Jesus whom "God hath exalted to his right
   hand to be a Prince and a Saviour." Acts v, 31. They would have been
   again incarcerated but for the intervention of Gamaliel, who takes up
   their defense, and gives wise counsel of toleration. The closing words
   of the speech of this venerable doctor, on the danger of fighting
   against God, show a great breadth of view. Acts v, 39. Was he
   expressing the general good-will of his sect toward the Christians, or
   did he personally stand aloof from the rest of the Pharisees, by a more
   independent spirit? Did his toleration cover, as has been asserted,
   contempt for the new religion, or was it founded on an exaggerated
   confidence in Judaism? Be the answer what it may, Gamaliel obtained
   from the Sanhedrim the liberation of the Apostles, after they had been
   scourged and again charged to speak no more in the name of Jesus. But
   they were men of purpose, and nothing could turn them from the
   accomplishment of their duty. Peter and John had shown, by their calm
   and firm attitude, that they were the conquerors in the struggle of
   force with conscience. Their readiness to endure all sufferings and ill
   treatment declared yet more clearly that their cause was not to be
   crushed. Heroic words, such as they had uttered, would be meaningless
   unless they were prepared to honor them by submitting to all the
   consequences of resistance. He who is resolved to suffer and to die for
   God cannot be vanquished. His noble endurance is also an ineffaceable
   disgrace to his persecutors, and every fresh victim to their rage makes
   persecution more detested. There is, then, no graver mistake than for a
   persecuted people to offer material as well as moral resistance; this
   is to subject themselves to the chances of strength, to the risks of a
   struggle of which the issue is always uncertain. He who takes the sword
   deserves to perish by the sword, for he implicitly admits the right of
   the strongest. Moral resistance, on the contrary, knows no chances, no
   risks. It is linked to an immortal principle, and destined to certain
   triumph.

   The young Church thus persecuted took refuge in prayer. Hence the
   majestic calmness, the blending of gentleness and indomitable energy
   which distinguished it. In such conflicts the soul finds serenity only
   on the summits of faith. To what an elevation were the Apostles lifted
   in that sublime prayer which was inspired by the circumstances in which
   they had just found themselves. From the particular fact of the
   persecution, they rise to the general law of the religious history
   which it reveals. They see it in that opposition between the princes of
   this world and the Son of God, set forth in the prophetic strains of
   Psalm ii. They comprehend that the bloody and victorious strife of
   Calvary is to be ever renewed. They feel themselves close bound to
   Christ the crucified; therefore they ask not to be delivered from
   persecution, but only to be faithful to him under their cross, and to
   be filled with his Spirit that they may the better glorify the name of
   the Holy Child Jesus. Acts iv, 24-30. God manifested his presence in
   their midst by a miraculous token. The place where they were was
   shaken. This miracle contained a promise for every time of persecution.
   The Church of the catacombs and the Church of the desert alike received
   its fulfillment, for in both there was given a marvellous manifestation
   of the presence of God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [3] Pentecost was spoken of in the time of Josephus as the feast of the
   great assembly. ("Ant.," iii, 10, 6.) According to Jewish tradition,
   Pentecost was the anniversary of the promulgation of the Jewish law.

   [4] Thiersch, "Die Kirche in dem Apostolischen Zeitalter," p. 66.

   [5] Irenæus, "Adv. Hæres., Book V, c. vi; Tertullian, "Contra Marc.,"
   Book V, c. viii.

   [6] According to the testimony of Papias in "Eusebius," Book VII, c.
   xxxix.

   [7] "Unitatem linguarum quam superbia Babylonis disperserate humilitas
   Ecclesiæ recolligit." See Note D, on the Pentecostal miracle.

   [8] Baur, "Paulus," pp. 34, 35.

   [9] In the course of this history it will be seen that the Church, for
   three centuries, did not attach the Romish sense to Matt. xvi, 18.

   [10] "And Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples." Acts i, 15.

   [11] "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice."
   Acts ii, 14.

   [12] Baur, "Paulus," p. 27.

   [13] Josephus, "Bell. Jud.," vi, 5, 3.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § II. The Teaching and First Constitution of the Church at Jerusalem.

   From its very birth the Christian Church is called to defend itself
   against the attacks of its adversaries, and to contend for the claims
   of truth. The opposition to Christianity assume from the outset various
   forms. The first to be encountered is that of scoffing unbelief. This
   foe has not yet sharpened and polished the weapons with which, in
   subsequent times, it will wound by the hands of a Celsus and a Lucian.
   But was not the laugh of the scorner heard on the very day when the
   Holy Spirit descended upon the Church? Did not his voice cry, "These
   men are full of new wine?" And from the scorner's point of view it was
   a fair conclusion. The supernatural is absurd to those who discern
   nothing beyond the circle of the visible; and herein is its peculiar
   glory. The laugh of unbelief has never ceased in all these eighteen
   centuries to ring through the world. But ridicule alone was not enough.
   Calumny and false insinuations must be enlisted in the same cause. The
   miracles of the primitive Church were incontestable; they could not be
   brought in question, but they might, like those of Jesus Christ, be
   ascribed to witchcraft, and to the powers of darkness. The arts of
   magic were much believed in at this epoch, as in all periods of
   religious crisis. There was, therefore, profound subtilty in likening
   the Apostles to common magicians. Such an idea is evidently present in
   the question of the Sanhedrim to Peter and John, after the healing of
   the impotent man: "By what power or by what name have ye done this?"
   Acts iv, 7. The enemies of the Apostles did not admit that they were
   the organs of divine power. The influence, then, by which they made so
   much stir must be diabolical or magical. Side by side with this open
   unbelief, the primitive Church had to encounter the ignorance and
   prejudices of a people of formalists and materialists. They had to
   establish the claims of Jesus Christ; that is, of a humble and
   crucified Messiah, before a nation which was ready to believe only in a
   glorious king—a new Maccabeus.

   To meet all objections, the Church had ready a simple and popular
   apology. We at once admit that they appealed without hesitation to the
   testimony of reason for all the facts coming within its competence.
   Thus, in reply to the absurd charge of drunkenness brought against the
   disciples, Peter urges that it is but the third hour of the day—the
   hour, that is, of morning prayer, before which the Jews never presumed
   to eat or drink. Acts ii, 15. But the advocates of Christianity do not
   pause long on such vindications. They have a line of argument
   peculiarly their own.

   It is to be observed that the miracles are rather the occasion than the
   cause of the apology which accompanies them. Peter does not say,
   "Believe because of this amazing gift of tongues, or these miraculous
   cures." He says, on the contrary, "Believe in the reality, the
   divinity, of the miracles on the scriptural and moral grounds, which
   show their necessity and establish their lawfulness." These miracles
   certainly contributed to the rapid spread of the new faith by the
   impression they produced upon the people; but so little are they the
   pivot on which the apology of the Apostles turns, that they are not the
   proof, but rather the object of the proof. We except one single
   miracle, which is the essential miracle of Christianity. The
   resurrection of Christ is not merely a marvel; it is also a great
   religious fact. It is the glorious seal of redemption. Therefore it
   occupies the first place in the preaching of the Apostles. Peter
   constantly appeals to it both before the people and before the
   Sanhedrim. Acts ii, 32; iii, 15; iv, 10; v, 30. The Apostles regarded
   themselves preeminently as the witnesses of the resurrection. Nothing,
   in fact, gave so solid a foundation to the new religion as this
   splendid triumph of Jesus Christ over death. It was the proof of his
   divine mission and of that of the Church, and the seal affixed by the
   hand of God to teaching in his name. "Between us and you," the Apostles
   seem to say, "God has judged: by raising up Jesus he has sovereignly
   declared that he was indeed Christ the Lord."

   Next to the proof drawn from the resurrection of the Lord, that which
   is most prominent in the discourses of Peter is the evidence from
   Scripture. He sets himself to show the harmony of the facts, in process
   of accomplishment, with Jewish prophecy. The first apologist of the
   Church could take no other ground. An appeal addressed to Jews by
   Christians of Jewish extraction must be made to a tribunal recognized
   by all, and this was no other than Holy Scripture. If the Apostles at
   Jerusalem succeeded in showing that the facts of which they were the
   witnesses had been foretold in the Scriptures, every upright Jew must
   be enlisted on their side. The Christian apology did not rise, in this
   its first stage, to the height to which it was carried by St. John and
   St. Paul. In form and spirit it was limited and characterized by the
   views so prominently set forth in the first Gospel.

   Thus Peter commences by showing that the miracle of Pentecost is the
   fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, who foretold the outpouring of the
   prophetic Spirit at the time of Messiah's appearing. Acts ii, 17-20. He
   points out that the resurrection of Jesus Christ had been predicted in
   Psalm xvi, which could not have reference to David, since the sepulcher
   of that king was still to be seen in Jerusalem. Acts ii, 25-34. In his
   second discourse, as in his defense before the Sanhedrim, Peter shows
   that the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, which
   were such a stumbling-block to the Jews, were set forth in the
   prophecies of the Old Testament. "This is the stone which was set at
   nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts
   iii, 18; iv, 11, 12. The Apostle, like St. Matthew, uses great freedom
   in quoting the Old Testament. Absorbed with the idea, so true in
   itself, that the thought of Messiah runs through the whole of the
   sacred oracles, he often turns into positive prophecy declarations of
   Scripture which have only an indirect reference to Gospel facts.

   In this first apology of Christianity many appeals are made to the
   conscience. The conclusion of Peter's discourses is always an
   invitation to repentance, and this invitation he urges by boldly
   charging home the great crime committed by the Jewish people: "You
   crucified the Lord of glory," he cries again and again to the murderers
   of Jesus Christ. He darts this terrible accusation like a barbed arrow
   into the hearts of his hearers, and thus he touches their vulnerable
   point. He pierces their conscience, and strong conviction is followed
   by multiplied conversions. Thus, the apology of the primitive Church is
   not simply defensive: it is able to take the offensive, and to carry
   the warfare into the hearts of its adversaries with all the authority
   of truth and the ardor of love. "The Apostles understood," says Calvin,
   "that the Gospel is also fire and sword."

   In estimating the doctrinal teaching of the Apostles at this period, it
   is needful to avoid exaggerating or detracting from the influence of
   the new ideas, which were at the basis of their belief. If there is
   full evidence that they declared the truth of Christ in all its
   essentials, the evidence seems to us no less clear that they still
   enveloped that truth in Jewish forms.

   It would be utterly unjust, however, to confound the primitive Church
   with this or that Jewish sect. It clung most closely to the prophetic
   portion of the Old Testament, that is to say, to the elements in the
   sacred book which best harmonized with itself. Never has transition
   been more admirably accomplished than that from the old covenant to the
   new, for the very simple reason that the latter struck all its roots
   down into the former. In the period which immediately followed the
   Pentecost the primitive Church was not called to break the tie which
   bound it to the temple. It still celebrated the Levitical worship. The
   assiduous attendance of the Apostles in the holy place is very notable;
   and they scrupulously observe the ceremonial law, which, in their view,
   still stands in its integrity. If they admit that all the nations of
   the earth are to be blessed in the Seed of Abraham, they have not yet
   comprehended that in Christ Jesus all national barriers are done away,
   and that the privileges and the prescriptions of Judaism are alike
   abolished. They still believe in the necessity of circumcision. But, on
   the other hand, they are broadly distinguished from their nation at
   large, not only by reaction against the formalism of the Pharisees, but
   also by their faith in Jesus Christ. This, their simple and artless
   faith, has in it no speculative element. The divinity of Messiah is not
   formally stated in Peter's preaching, but it comes out spontaneously.
   What correspondence is there between the Messiah of the Ebionites, the
   Prophet of the "Clementines," and the Christ of St. Peter? On the one
   hand we have a simple man, like Adam or Moses; on the other, we have
   the Saviour represented as "seated at the right hand of God," (Acts ii,
   33, 34;) "the Prince of life," (Acts iii, 15;) the One apart from whom
   there is no salvation, (Acts iv, 12;) Him who is spoken of in Psalm ii
   as the Lord's Anointed, and his first begotten Son. Acts iv, 26. Let it
   not be forgotten that these illustrious names are given to Christ at a
   time when his power had not yet been gloriously manifested in the
   extension and establishment of his Church. Evidently, by this
   recognition of the dignity and sovereignty of Jesus Christ, the Church
   cast away all Jewish prejudices. Enough stress has not been laid on the
   conclusion of Peter's sermons, which always sets forth faith in Christ
   as the infallible means of pardon and of regeneration. And again, is it
   not in his name that all are to be baptized? The relation between
   Christ and the sinner is represented by Peter, as it was by Jesus
   Christ himself. Of this unique relation between the soul and the
   Saviour, St. Paul and St. John, drawing their inspiration from the last
   discourses of the Master, will presently unfold to us the profound
   significance. [14]

   Christian doctrine had, it is evident, at this time, no systematic
   form. It was subsequently to develop all its consequences, to define
   its outlines, and, in the repeated shocks of a salutary conflict, to
   cast away its Jewish garment. This first era of the Church was to be
   the period, not of conflict and debate, but of the manifestation of the
   direct, sovereign and extraordinary action of the Divine Spirit. The
   history of the Church itself, properly speaking, was not to begin till
   later. The first Christians had no thought of a history. They believed
   in an immediate return of Jesus Christ "to restore all things." They
   supposed that the end of the world was at hand, and that the last days
   foretold by Joel had begun to dawn. Acts ii, 17; iii, 19, 20. Thus they
   awaited those days of refreshing from the presence of the Lord which
   were to inaugurate the second coming of Christ.

   Ecclesiastical organization was as far from being fixed, in this first
   period, as was the doctrine of the Church from being formulated. A
   Church must be founded before it can have a constitution. The river is
   as yet too near its source to flow in a regularly-channeled bed. We
   find, therefore, no office, properly so called, nor any fixed rule for
   the admission of new members. All offices are centered in the
   apostolate. The Apostles receive gifts for the community. Acts iv, 35.
   They attend to the distribution of alms, as well as to preaching. Acts
   ii, 42; vi, 2. When some subject of general interest is mooted, they
   convene a meeting of the faithful. It cannot be disputed that they
   exercised a large authority in the primitive Church. The apostolate at
   first united in one all the various offices, which were by degrees to
   become detached. It is, then, of great importance that we should
   rightly conceive the situation.

   We must set aside, first of all, any ideas of sacerdotalism. It must
   not be forgotten that, at the period when the apostolic authority was
   used with most power in the Church, the Church still acknowledged the
   Jewish priesthood. Besides, Christianity recognizes no priesthood but
   that of Christ, communicated by faith to the Christian. The Apostles
   were not the sole organs of inspiration, for the Holy Spirit which was
   promised was granted to all the disciples assembled in the upper
   chamber a few days after the ascension. We have fully shown that on the
   day of Pentecost all the Christians were filled with the Holy Ghost. It
   is incontestable that in the primitive Church some private Christians,
   not invested with the apostolic office, had more influence than the
   majority of the Apostles; it is enough to cite the names of Stephen,
   Philip, and James. In what, then, consisted the apostolic office? Their
   name of messenger has nothing exclusive in it, since all Christians are
   the witnesses of Jesus Christ. Their number supplies us with one
   element for the resolution of the question. They were twelve. Evidently
   this symbolical number points to the twelve tribes of the chosen
   people. The Apostles are the ideal representation of the true Israel,
   and answer, in the spiritual ancestry, to the twelve sons of Jacob.
   They clearly do not represent the priestly tribe, but the twelve
   tribes; that is to say, the people of God as a whole. In other words,
   they are the nucleus of the Church, so made by Jesus Christ himself.
   Apostolical succession is not, then, the privilege of a certain portion
   of the body, but of the whole; the Christian Church itself carries on
   the apostolic office. There is nothing in such a conception derogatory
   to the authority of the Apostles. In them were concentrated, so to
   speak, all the gifts bestowed on the Christians of the primitive
   Church, for they were the immediate witnesses of Christ. This
   qualification of being a direct witness is that specially required by
   Peter, when the place of Judas is to be filled. Acts i, 21, 22. In
   short, an apostle is pre-eminently a witness of Jesus Christ, and
   officially so recognized; he is by this very characteristic the
   authentic representative of the primitive Church. His authority is not
   in any way defined; it varies in the case of various apostles,
   according to the nature of the gifts of each, but it is exercised most
   largely during this period, while the Church is yet young and
   unorganized. The primitive apostolate, founded upon personal contact
   with Jesus Christ, was not designed to be transmitted; it was to give
   place subsequently to a more spiritual apostleship. [15]

   The conditions of entrance into the Church are at first extremely
   simple. No guaranty of preparation, of instruction and examination is
   required, because conversion has at this period an exceptionally sudden
   and supernatural character. The sign of initiation into the new society
   is baptism. The gift of the Holy Spirit is so far from being bound to
   the material act, that sometimes it precedes immersion. The formula of
   baptism was not pronounced in full; the neophytes were simply baptized
   in the name of the Lord. [16] The Church, though not separated from the
   temple, felt nevertheless that it constituted a body apart, to which
   adherence must be given. Its discipline shares in the miraculous
   character of this period, as is shown by the history of Ananias and
   Sapphira. Acts v, 1-11. Their death, which it may be observed does not
   necessarily imply their perdition, since there may have been a
   coincident awakening of conscience, is the effect of the direct and
   terrible discipline of the Divine Spirit. It reveals the will of God,
   that in his Church itself there should be a burning crucible, in which
   the pure gold should be twice purified.

   The worship of the primitive Church is also of an exceptional
   character. The disciples are continually in the temple; they go up to
   it at the hour of prayer and of sacrifice. Yet they have also their
   secret worship, celebrated in the upper room at Jerusalem. [17] This,
   if it borrows some forms from the synagogue, has nevertheless a stamp
   of originality. We recognize in it the essential elements by which it
   will be ultimately characterized. Teaching, adoration, song, prayer,
   and the eucharistic meal, are its principal features. [18]

   We must be especially careful not to deprive it of its primitive
   simplicity. The teaching did not take the form of preaching, properly
   so called; it was an unstudied speech, springing from the heart. The
   Apostles were not the only speakers; the other Christians spoke as
   freely as they of the wonderful works of God. Acts ii, 4. The hymn and
   prayer borrowed their forms of solemn poetry from Old Testament
   prophecy; the whole assembly took part, but in what manner is not
   clearly described. Acts iv, 24. The eucharistic meal of the Church at
   Jerusalem bears no resemblance whatever to what is called the Sacrament
   of the Altar. The first Christians still held themselves in subjection
   to the ceremonial law; thus for them the altar was in the temple, and
   nowhere else. The Lord's Supper could not then have any possible
   analogy with a sacrifice. It was not kept distinct at this period from
   an ordinary meal; it was the conclusion of ordinary meals, as it had
   been the conclusion of the Passover feast. The commemoration of
   redemption took place every time that Christians gathered around the
   family table. St. Luke says positively that it was observed from house
   to house. [19] The Agapæ were only introduced in the next period. [20]

   From all these observations, it appears that the distinction between
   the ordinary and the religious life had no existence for the primitive
   Church, because its ordinary life was raised to a height truly divine.
   Hence the supernatural character of its piety. The Church is not
   satisfied, as afterward, with infusing the spirit of Christianity into
   all the various social relations; it translates the pure ideal at once
   into the real, and banishes poverty from its midst by the voluntary
   generosity of the rich. Acts iv, 34, 35. "As many as were possessors of
   lands or houses sold them." There was nothing absolute or compulsory in
   this community of goods; it was based upon free consent; but it was
   certainly for the time almost fully carried out in Jerusalem. [21] The
   history of the Church thus commences with a glorious Sabbath, in which
   every thing is marvelous and exceptional; this precedes the long week
   of toil and struggle which is even now far from ended, just as divine
   grace precedes human effort in the Christian life.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [14] All these observations are called for by the bold statements of
   the Tübingen School. Schwegler, "Nach Apost. Zeitalt.," p. 10; Baur, in
   his book on St. Paul; Ritschl, "Enstehung der Altcatholischen Kirche,"
   pp. 108, 109, affirm the identity of primitive Christianity with
   Judaism. They rest their assertion on such expressions as "Jesus, a man
   approved of God." Acts ii, 22. But they take no notice of all the other
   declarations which we have mentioned.

   [15] Some have discovered a sort of anticipation of the diaconate in
   this office of the young men who carried out the bodies of Ananias and
   Sapphira. But this is quite a gratuitous supposition.

   [16] Acts ii, 38. Hepi thō honomati Iēsou Christou Acts x, 48.

   [17] See Harnack, "Der Christliche Gemeinde Gottesdienst im Apost.
   Zeitalt.," pp. 69-131.

   [18] In Acts ii, 42, "the apostles' doctrine" represents the element of
   teaching, and "the breaking of bread" the eucharistic feast.

   [19] Klōntés te kat' oikon arton, metelambanon trophēs en agalliasei.
   Acts ii, 46.

   [20] When Thiersch and Harnack assert that the first Christians
   observed the Sabbath from this time, they speak without proof. St. Luke
   declares that Christian worship was celebrated without distinction of
   days. Kath' hēmeran. Acts ii, 46.

   [21] The words of Peter to Ananias (Acts v, 4) prove that there was
   perfect freedom of action. This community of goods was not absolute,
   for we read that the Church was gathered together in the house of Mary,
   the mother of Mark. Acts xii, 12. Neander seems, however, to depreciate
   unduly the significance of the first community of possessions.
   "Pflanz," pp. 39, 40.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2] See Note C, on the principal source of the history of the Apostolic
   Age.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER II.

  FIRST INTERNAL CONFLICT, AND FIRST EXTENSION OF THE CHURCH BEYOND JERUSALEM.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § I. The Seven Deacons of the Church at Jerusalem. Stephen.

   THE Church could not always remain on the calm heights to which the
   Spirit of God had at first carried her. It was needful that the truth,
   of which she was the depositary, should be made her own by laborious
   assimilation; that she should follow it out to all its issues, and
   attain, as it were, her moral majority by breaking the bonds of
   Judaism. But this could not be achieved without many a severe struggle;
   there were inveterate prejudices to be subdued, which would only yield
   after a sharp resistance. The disputes which arose between the Hebrew
   and Hellenist Jews gave forewarning of the storm soon to burst upon the
   Church.

   Christian charity had spontaneously found a noble mode of expression in
   the new society. In the first fervor of zeal the wants of all the poor
   members were supplied. It was only subsequently that certain jealousies
   began to arise about the distribution of the alms. The Church had been
   formed on the occasion of a great festival, when numbers of foreign
   Jews were assembled at Jerusalem. Among these a large proportion of its
   members were found. These Jews were designated Hellenist because they
   spoke the Greek language. They had lost some of their Jewish
   peculiarities under the influence of the lands in which they lived. The
   Church found among them the readiest proselytes. The Jews of Hebrew
   origin, whose national pride was stimulated to excess by the Pharisees,
   despised these Hellenist Jews. They regarded them as their inferiors,
   on the pretext that they consorted with Gentiles; they were wont almost
   to rank them in the vanguard of paganism. These prejudices found their
   way into the Church, and the Hebrew widows had the largest share in the
   almsgiving, while the Hellenist widows were neglected. The Jews of
   foreign extraction complained loudly of this injustice. Thus within the
   very inclosure of Judaism arose the great question which was to excite
   so much controversy in the first century. It became necessary at once
   to decide if the differences of nationality were or were not abrogated
   by Christianity; if the new religion was to perpetuate or to annul
   Jewish tradition. The Apostles engaged in no theoretical discussion;
   they would not at this period have been capable of it, but they
   provided, by the institution of a new office, for the removal of any
   inequality in the distribution of alms.

   Until now there had been in the Church no office but the apostolate;
   the nomination of the seven Deacons at Jerusalem was the first new
   wheel introduced into the simple machinery. This primitive diaconate
   must be distinguished from that which was subsequently established in a
   definite form. The further we go back in the history of the Church the
   more indefinite in character are all ecclesiastical offices. Their
   limits are not clearly or precisely laid down. The regular division of
   labor is not yet a necessity. The seven Deacons chosen to superintend
   the almsgiving are all men distinguished for their missionary zeal, and
   one of them for a time stands out even more prominently than the
   Apostles. In the primitive Church all speak and act as they are moved
   by the Holy Ghost—there are no hierarchical distinctions. But this
   condition of things ceases when the ecclesiastical organization is
   definitely completed; the various offices in the Church are then
   distinguished by a clear line of demarkation. [22]

   The institution of the primitive diaconate shows how free and
   spontaneous is every thing in the apostolic Church. None of its
   ordinances are appointed like the Mosaic institutions; there is not
   even the semblance of any official declaration of them. They arise out
   of the necessities of new circumstances. The organization of the Church
   is as supple as it is simple, and accommodates itself to the various
   exigencies of its situation, avoiding only any concession to error or
   to evil. It is evident that this first ecclesiastical office springs
   from the apostolate, and is again cut off like a bough from the parent
   trunk; it is not imposed by the Apostles on the Church, nor conferred
   by way of sacramental transmission. The seven Deacons are not nominated
   by the Apostles, but chosen by the whole assembly. The imposition of
   hands which they receive bears no resemblance to a priestly
   consecration. It is the sign of their entry upon their office,
   accompanied with a solemn prayer. [23] To maintain, as do the advocates
   of hierarchical principles, that the Deacons were chosen by the
   assembly instead of being appointed by the Apostles because their
   duties were essentially temporal and administrative, [24] is to
   misconceive the part which belonged to them in the primitive Church; it
   is to depreciate their office—one which was filled at first by the
   Apostles themselves; it is to ignore, in fine, the fact which we shall
   presently establish, that all offices, without exception, were by
   election.

   The seven men chosen to serve the tables were for the most part
   Hellenist Jews, as may be inferred from their names. We even find among
   them a proselyte named Nicholas. [25] His election indicates that the
   liberal tendency had already gained the ascendant, and that the
   primitive Church was not so much in bondage to Jewish prejudices as has
   been asserted. The most remarkable man among the seven Deacons is
   unquestionably Stephen. The sacred historian is sparing of personal
   details in his case, but the few scattered traits in the narrative
   suffice to give us the outline of one of the noblest and most beautiful
   figures of Christian antiquity. Stephen appears to us a man of ardent
   and energetic nature, formed for conflict, full of the fire of an
   enthusiastic conviction. His spirit is remarkable for breadth; he was
   the first Christian emancipated from Jewish prejudices. The love of
   truth consumes him; for it he is ready to make any sacrifice—not
   withholding his life. His death is the crowning evidence of the
   disinterested love by which he was impelled; for, like his Master, with
   the same lips which had hurled the anathema at hypocrisy and formalism
   he forgives his murderers, proving at once his holy indignation against
   sin and holy pity for the sinner. Stephen is the ideal witness for
   truth, and therefore he was the first of the martyrs. He was the
   forerunner of St. Paul, for he laid down the principles which the great
   Apostle was to develop and victoriously to defend. Is not this
   abundantly evident from the terms of the charge brought against him:
   "We have heard him," say the false witnesses, "speak blasphemous words
   against Moses and against God." "This man ceaseth not to speak
   blasphemous words against this holy place and the law." "For we have
   heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and
   shall change the customs which Moses delivered us." Acts vi, 13, 14. It
   is evident that the words of Stephen are represented in a false light;
   it is a calumny to accuse him of having blasphemed God or Moses, and of
   having declared the destruction of the temple by Jesus Christ and his
   disciples. But it is easy to discern the true beneath the false.
   Stephen had, doubtless, insisted, in his argument with the formalist
   Jews, on the transitory character of the old covenant. He may have
   commented on those discourses in which the Master showed how the Mosaic
   law was at once accomplished and abolished in himself. He may have
   repeated the Master's sayings with reference to the true spiritual
   worship, which has no more need of holy places; and he may have
   proclaimed the substitution of a new and final order of things for the
   old and evanescent. In the eyes of the Jews this is his high crime;
   this is also the glory of his mission. His defense before the Sanhedrim
   would alone suffice to show to what an elevation he had been raised by
   the Spirit of God.

   At the first glance, Stephen's apology may seem too remote, too far
   fetched. [26] It is not immediately evident for what reason he traces
   in so much detail the history of the Jewish people. All is clear,
   however, when the drift of his argument is once perceived. In this
   position, as in all others, Stephen forgets himself, and thinks only of
   the truth of which he is the organ. He seeks not to be himself
   acquitted; he desires only to defend well his principles. He cares
   nothing for himself—the cause of Jesus Christ absorbs him wholly. Thus
   considered, nothing can be more admirable than his address. He has been
   charged with blasphemy against Moses and against the institutions and
   revelations of the old covenant. He proves that the blasphemy and
   impiety are not on his part, but on the part of his adversaries—the
   worthy descendants of a rebellious people, which through every stage of
   its history had received with a hard and uncircumcised heart the
   unwearying love of God.

   Stephen makes good his statement by drawing a broad historic picture,
   in which he shows, in parallel lines, the goodness of God and the
   ingratitude of the people of the Jews. We feel that he has ever in view
   the last and highest manifestation of that ingratitude, and that he
   perpetually gives to the history a symbolic and prophetic meaning. He
   brings to mind, first, the origin of the nation and all the promises
   which rested on its cradle, all the blessings and deliverances which
   were granted to it in the person of Abraham. This recital shows, on the
   one hand, how deeply Stephen has been calumniated in the charge of
   blasphemy against the God of his fathers, and on the other, brings out
   the guilty obduracy of a people so richly blessed. The largest part of
   the address is taken up with the history of Moses, and this for the
   reason, that the contrast between the goodness of God and the unbelief
   of the chosen people never appeared in characters more strongly marked
   than at that time. This Moses, chosen to be the deliverer of Israel,
   miraculously saved by God and visibly prepared for this mission, is
   rejected by his own people on his first attempt to aid them. Acts vii,
   26-29. He meets with the same reception when he returns from the
   desert, where God has trained him for his great work. Acts vii, 29-35.
   He has still to contend with the same slowness of heart to believe,
   after the miracles of the deliverance; and during the very time when he
   is speaking to God on the mountain, the people give themselves up to
   abominable idolatry. Who does not see that Moses is set forth by
   Stephen as a type of Messiah? That his hearers may by no possibility
   mistake, he calls him a redeemer, [27] and suddenly in the midst of his
   narrative, as if to illuminate the whole, he brings in the prophecy in
   Deuteronomy of the prophet like unto Moses, whom the Lord should raise
   up. Acts v, 37. Stephen thus transforms his apology into a bold
   accusation. He shows that if Moses has been blasphemed it has been not
   by him, but rather by the forefathers of his accusers and by those very
   accusers themselves, who have treated Jesus Christ as their fathers
   treated his precursor. Stephen sums up in a few words the later period
   of the history of his nation. He refers to the building of the temple,
   without a word of the condemnation with which he had been charged; on
   the contrary, he sees in it a striking proof of the favor of God toward
   the family of David. Acts vii, 46-50. He protests only against the
   gross materialism which has made this temple the national idol: "God
   dwelleth not," he simply reminds them, "in temples made with hands."
   The history of the Prophets furnishes him with new proofs of the
   unbelief of his nation. These heralds of Christ were treated as Christ
   himself had been treated. At this thought, the indignation long
   repressed seems to burst in a torrent from his heart, and he concludes
   his whole address with this tremendous apostrophe: "Ye stiff-necked and
   uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as
   your fathers did, so do ye." [28]

   Such is the apology of Stephen—so simple, so noble; it contains, in an
   historic form, ideas the most fresh and sublime, and reveals an
   important development of Christian thought. And, strange to say, we owe
   this development to a man who is not an Apostle, and who appears in
   this crisis superior to the twelve. We have in this fact an
   irrefragable proof that nothing like a monopoly of revelation was
   enjoyed by the Apostles.

   Fiercely interrupted by the rage of his hearers, Stephen is dragged out
   of the assembly. The fury of the Jews is so great that all the forms of
   justice are set aside; he is, in the wild commotion, stoned without a
   trial. His death is truly sublime. [29] His countenance beams with a
   heavenly light. It is the pure radiance of love. A vision of glory is
   granted him; he dies while breathing pardon on his murderers. His last
   prayer is addressed distinctly to Jesus Christ, and, by his final
   homage, he renders dying testimony to his divinity. It was fitting that
   this great truth should be thus proclaimed by the first of the
   martyrs—by the man who most fully comprehended the superiority of the
   new covenant over the old; for Christianity rises above Judaism just in
   proportion to the recognition of the divinity of Christ. There was
   great lamentation over Stephen. The pious men who carried him to his
   burial with tender respect simply obeyed one of the truest impulses of
   the human heart. And yet that very sentiment, in an exaggerated form,
   became subsequently the parent of wretched superstitions, and found its
   ultimate expression in the adoration of the dust of the martyrs.

   The death of Stephen, like that of all the confessors, set to his
   testimony a truly sacred seal, and gave it redoubled power. It not only
   served Christianity in a general manner, but specially advanced that
   truth for which he had given his life. His cause was gained. The
   glorious thought which had inflamed his zeal was to be caught by a man
   who stood as yet among the enemies of the Church, but whom God designed
   to use for the casting down, with a strong hand, of the barrier between
   Judaism and the Gentile world. This was that young man whom the sacred
   writer points out to us, holding the garments of them that stoned
   Stephen. Saul of Tarsus had heard Stephen's defense with the
   indignation of a Pharisee of the Pharisees, but in the midst of his
   anger God had darted into his soul one of those piercing goads which
   cannot long be resisted. The memory of that day never faded from his
   mind. The redoubling of his persecuting zeal denotes the disquiet of
   his spirit. Of this we shall find further proof when we trace the story
   of his conversion. "If Stephen had not prayed," beautifully says
   Augustine, "the Church had not had Paul." [30]

   The persecution of which Saul of Tarsus was the instigator is an
   indication of the sudden change in the disposition of the Pharisees
   toward the Church. This sect, at first favorably disposed, took little
   part in the first persecution: now it takes the initiative in measures
   of violence, and soon surpasses the Sadducees in cruelty. In truth, the
   religious parties which lay their crimes to the charge of God, and
   pretend to avenge the cause of Heaven, are the most dangerous of all,
   because they hold themselves bound to no moderation in their transports
   of rage. The first result of this second persecution was the dispersion
   of the Christians. They were to learn more than one lesson in this
   exile. Salutary experience was to give confirmation to the words of
   Stephen, and the successes gained by the Church on foreign soil were to
   raise it above the exclusiveness of Judaism.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [22] Vitringa, "De Sygnag. Vetere," Lib. III, pars ii, c. v, shows
   perfectly the difference between the seven Deacons of Jerusalem and the
   Deacons spoken of by Paul. He points out, in the first place, that the
   name "Deacon" is not given to the former. He then shows that while
   these had, as their special function, to superintend the almsgiving,
   that duty is not mentioned by St. Paul among those devolving on the
   Deacons of his day. Lastly, he rests upon the opinion of Chrysostom,
   "Homily XIV, in Act." II, 3.

   [23] Acts vi, 5, 6. We shall speak again of the question of the laying
   on of hands in the primitive Church.

   [24] Thiersch, "Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter," p. 98.

   [25] The fathers of the third century make this Nicholas the father of
   the Nicolaitan heresy. (Irenæus, "Contr. Hæres.," II, c. xxvii; Epiph.,
   "Hæres.," § 27.) We shall discuss this opinion when we come to speak of
   the heresies of the early Church.

   [26] Baur, "Paulus," 43-45.

   [27] Autrōtēn, Acts vii, 35.

   [28] The address of Stephen shows great freedom in the manner of
   quoting the Old Testament. Thus, in verse 14, he says that the family
   of Jacob consisted of seventy-five persons, while, according to Genesis
   xlvi, 27, it numbered only seventy. In verse 16 he says that Abraham
   bought the sepulcher at Sychem for a sum of money. But, according to
   Genesis, it was Jacob who did so. Gen. xxxiii, 19. See a beautiful
   paraphrase in Thiersch of the speech of Stephen. The typical point of
   view is, however, there given with exaggeration.

   [29] His death is said to have taken place in the year 36, the time of
   the deposition of Pilate. Such a murder can be more readily understood
   in an interim of authority; but the sudden excitement of a mob is never
   stayed by scruples as to legality.

   [30] "Si Stephanus non orasset, Ecclesia Paulum non haberet." St.
   August., "Sermo" XCIV.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § II. The Dispersion of the Christians. The Gospel in Samaria. Simon
   Magus. Philip and the Eunuch.

   Persecution, by scattering the Christians, widened at once the field of
   their missionary activity and the range of their ideas. They went forth
   to encounter, for the first time, paganism—the eclectic paganism of
   that age, which united in its vague beliefs the East and the West. This
   niew adversary awaited them in one of the cities of Samaria, to which
   certain of their number had directed their steps. Samaria was not,
   indeed, actually a pagan country. Its inhabitants were the descendants
   of that mixed population, formed of the remnant of the ten tribes and
   of a colony of foreigners, transplanted by the order of Salmanasar.
   [31] When the Jews returned from Babylon, the Samaritans sought to take
   part in the rebuilding of the temple. Ezra iv, 1, 2. They were repelled
   with indignation. They then resolved to rear a temple to Jehovah on the
   Mount Gerizim. [32] The Samaritans shared, like the Jews, in the
   consequences of the revolutions in Asia Minor. Their temple was
   destroyed by John Hyrcanus. [33] But Mount Gerizim continued still to
   be to them a holy place. [34] They ultimately fell under the dominion
   of the Romans, and underwent the same political fluctuations as their
   neighbors. Many causes nurtured the hatred between the two neighboring
   nations. The Samaritans were wont to repudiate any community of origin
   with the Jews when they found it their interest to do so. "The
   Samaritans," says the historian Josephus, "deny their Hebrew origin
   when the Jews are in distress, but as soon as any prosperity comes to
   them, they are eager to appeal to their common ancestry in Joseph and
   Manasseh." [35] It is easy to understand what a leaven of bitterness
   such conduct would prove in the hearts of the Jews. These could not
   forget that, to purchase the favor of Antiochus Epiphanes in a time of
   pressing peril, the Samaritans had declared that their temple was
   dedicated to the deities of Greece, and that they themselves practiced
   Greek rites. [36] They had, however, in truth remained faithful to
   monotheism. As the great prophetic period had commenced just at the
   time of their separation from the Jews, they had been utter strangers
   to the whole of that magnificent development of the old covenant. They
   acknowledged the Pentateuch only, and, with the exception of a small
   minority, denied the resurrection of the dead. [37] It appears, also,
   from Epiphanes, that the mysticism of the Essenes found some adherents
   among them. [38] The Samaritans shared in some measure in the Jewish
   expectation of Messiah, (John iv, 25,) but their Messianic hopes were
   even more tainted with materialism than were those of the Jews, at
   least if we give credit to the few Samaritans who still live among the
   ruins of their country, and who appear to have faithfully kept the
   ancient traditions. According to them, Messiah is to reign over all
   nations, to restore the holy law, to rebuild the temple on Gerizim, and
   to insure the universal triumph of Moses. [39] The facility with which
   the magician Simon fascinated the whole Samaritan people with his
   sorceries is another proof of the earthly nature of their hopes.

   We need not here show, (for we have done so elsewhere,) that from the
   stand-point of natural religion, the magician was the sole Messiah, the
   only deliverer that could be looked for. For those who have deified
   nature, the last resource must be her hidden power; pagan dualism, not
   rising to the conception of moral evil, by conjuring away the effects
   of the noxious powers of nature. Magicians had, therefore, an important
   part to play in these times of religious transition and aspiration. The
   predominance of oriental ideas, the influence of the Jewish conception
   of Messiah, all combined to increase their ascendency in these lands.
   The Samaritans had already yielded to the influence of a false Messiah
   named Dositheus. The testimonies of Christian antiquity with regard to
   this man are incomplete and contradictory. According to the oldest
   witness, Origen, Dositheus, a contemporary of Jesus Christ, declared
   himself to be the expected Messiah, and even laid claim to the
   attribute of the Son of God. [40] It is quite possible that the
   impostor may have turned to account the impression produced by the
   Saviour's passing through Samaria. His influence appears to have been
   maintained for some time, but within a limited circle. [41] Simon
   gained a far wider popularity. Legend has borrowed his name, and has
   invested his history with absurd fables. He even becomes a wholly
   typical character in some writings of Judaizing heretics of the second
   century. [42] Justin Martyr supposes him to have come to Rome, and
   regards him as the founder of a new worship, but his assertion is
   evidently based on an historic error. [43] Many modern theologians have
   concluded from these myths that the whole history of Simon was only a
   tissue of legends. But it contains positive facts, guarantied by the
   unanimous witness of the Fathers, and confirmed by the
   recently-discovered writings of Hippolytus. "Simon," we read in the
   "Philosophoumena," "was of Gitton, a village of Samaria. He was a
   skillful magician; he sought to pass for God." [44] He had with him a
   woman of dissolute life named Helena whom he had found at Tyre, and to
   whom he allotted a prominent part in his system. [45] As to this
   system—if a confused medley of incongruous ideas be worthy of such a
   name—we must distinguish between its original form and the
   modifications which it underwent after Simon became acquainted with
   Christianity. As these modifications, however, touched no essential
   principle, we may fairly seek for its primary idea, in the tolerably
   complete exposition of his doctrines, contained in the
   "Philosophoumena" of Hippolytus. We find there valuable fragments of a
   book, composed, if not by Simon, by one of his immediate disciples.
   [46] St. Luke tells us that Simon was proclaimed by his followers to be
   "the great power of God." [47] The book to which his name is attached
   gives us the exact meaning of these words. Simon recognized a first,
   hidden, invisible principle, of which the world is the eternal
   manifestation. [48] This first principle has two modes of
   manifestation: it reveals itself first as an active and spiritual, next
   as a passive and receptive principle. Dualism is thus at the outset
   clearly stated. [49] The receptive or passive principle deteriorates
   perpetually, and finally becomes altogether materialized. The courtesan
   Helena was the personification of this principle. The mission of Simon
   the sorcerer was to effect her deliverance, which was to be that of all
   mankind. He pretended, himself, to represent the active and spiritual
   principle, and thus to incarnate the great power of God. This sketch of
   his doctrine will suffice for the present. We shall look at it again
   under the new and complex form which it assumes, when, by alliance with
   Christian ideas, it becomes heresy. [50] We know enough of it to
   recognize in it the old Phoenician dualism, and the earliest features
   of Gnostic dualism. It contains the first rough, imperfect outline of
   the subtle doctrines which were destined to cause so much evil to the
   Church. The absurdity of the part which Simon allots to himself, the
   great indecorousness of that which he assigns to a courtesan, are less
   astonishing when we remember the country in which his strange system
   was conceived. This country was situated on the borders of that Phrygia
   which gave birth to the most infamous fables of paganism. Simon may be
   considered as pre-eminently the false Messiah. He held a doctrine of
   perdition, but this perdition was not the result of sin, since it was,
   like matter, eternal and fatal. Nor had salvation in his system any
   moral character; it consisted only in subtle artifices, and the
   pretended Saviour was nothing but a magician. Thus, by diabolic art,
   the desire after redemption, so keenly alive at this period, was
   miserably cheated. Simon acquired a very great influence over the
   Samaritan people. He in a manner bewitched them.

   It might be foreseen that the same vague aspiration which impelled the
   multitude eagerly to follow Simon, would make it attentive to the
   preaching of the Gospel. Such was the actual result when Philip, driven
   from Jerusalem by the persecution, preached Christ to the Samaritans,
   and confirmed his word by signs and wonders; the people at once forsook
   the impostor, and thronged to hear the word of truth.

   Simon, like a cunning tactician, followed the multitude, in the hope of
   regaining his authority. He was baptized with his former adherents. The
   Apostles, who had remained at Jerusalem, hearing of the success of
   Philip's preaching, sent two of their number into this new and fruitful
   field of labor. They chose Peter and John, who up to this time had
   displayed the greatest activity in the primitive Church. This decision
   was most wise: Philip had very probably suggested it in his letters.
   The work was too wide and important for his unaided efforts; it was
   natural that those who had shown the greatest missionary zeal should
   come to his assistance. Peter and John, as soon as they arrive in
   Samaria, witness, in answer to their prayer, a descent of the Holy
   Ghost upon the Samaritan neophytes. The defenders of the hierarchy
   magnify this fact; but in order to raise it to the height of a
   principle and general rule, it is needful to show that during the whole
   apostolic period the Holy Ghost never chose any other medium than the
   Apostles or their immediate delegates. Now it is certain that the Holy
   Spirit was often given to the new converts without their concurrence.
   [51] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and the grace of God is not
   confined to any official channel. If the Holy Spirit was not given to
   the Samaritans until after the arrival of Peter and John, we hold, with
   Neander, that the cause must have been a purely moral one. Their
   preaching rapidly developed the germ of the new life in the neophytes
   of Sychar, who had possibly at first embraced Christianity only in
   outward form. It is surely more honorable to the Apostles to suppose
   the results to have been wrought by the living power of their words,
   than by any outward and material act-the transmission of some
   mysterious, magnetic fluid from their persons. Such theories are truly
   derogatory, and lower the Apostles to the rank of the magicians, whose
   power they were come to destroy.

   Simon betrayed in these circumstances the secret of his heart. By
   offering to buy the gift of God, he showed that he, like so many since
   his day, had confounded grace with magic; and it is just that the
   abominable traffic in holy things should bear his name. We see him for
   one moment trembling under the tremendous rebuke of the Apostle. But
   history shows us that his repentance had no root. He was the founder of
   the first heresy. Legend says that he came to Rome, and there
   ignominiously died. It is possible that in the great confluence of East
   and West he may have been found in that capital of the world where all
   creeds met, and all impostors left their track. But this sojourn of
   Simon at Rome is not verified by any authentic document. In him
   Christianity encountered the father of Gnosticism and of heresy. The
   numerous legends which cling around his name reveal the terror he
   inspired. [52]

   The foundation of the Christian Church in Samaria had a very happy
   effect upon the growth and expansion of Christian thought. Not only did
   the Jews cherish the strongest antipathy to the Samaritans, but they
   had raised a barrier of legal prescriptions of extreme severity between
   themselves and their hated neighbors. The Gospels give us numerous
   proofs of this fact. The most injurious name which the enemies of
   Christ can find for him is that of a Samaritan. John viii, 48. The
   woman of Sychar is amazed that a Jew will dare to converse with her.
   John declares positively that the Jews have no dealings with the
   Samaritans. John iv, 9. The Talmud shows that it is forbidden for an
   Israelite to break bread with a Samaritan: "He who takes the bread of a
   Samaritan is like him who eats the flesh of swine. No Israelite may
   receive a Samaritan as a proselyte; this accursed people shall have no
   part in the resurrection of the dead." [53] Thus the Apostles, when
   they went to preach the Gospel in Samaria, must needs have risen above
   the most inveterate prejudices of their nation. It was a great step
   toward realizing the true breadth of Christianity. The preaching
   addressed to the Samaritans was to lead them, by a transition of the
   Saviour's own appointing, to carry the Gospel throughout the whole
   world. The primitive Church thus entered upon the path opened by
   Stephen, and his martyrdom bore its first-fruits.

   Peter and John return to Jerusalem, while the Deacon Philip is called,
   by a new manifestation of the will of God, yet further to extend the
   field of Christian missions. It is not a Samaritan, but a pagan, whom
   he next instructs in the truth. In crossing the desert which leads to
   Gaza, a city of the ancient Philistines, he meets with a stranger, who,
   as he journeys, is reading in his chariot a portion of the Scriptures.
   He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a great dignitary of the court of Meroe,
   treasurer of the Queen. [54] This man, a pagan by birth, had taken a
   long journey to worship the true God in the temple at Jerusalem. [55]
   Whatever might have been his religious character, he could never, as a
   eunuch, have passed the door of the congregation of the people of God.
   Deut. xxiii, 1. He was, perhaps, only a proselyte of the gate. But his
   soul, full of holy aspiration, was already open to the Gospel. He was
   reading that sublime chapter, Isaiah liii, in which the sufferings of
   Messiah are depicted in traits so touching and so true. Philip, by a
   few words of explanation, removes all his doubts, and carries
   conviction home to his heart. He eagerly embraces the truth. He becomes
   without delay a disciple of Jesus Christ, and without any consideration
   of Jewish practice, he receives baptism. "He found more," eloquently
   says Jerome, "in the desert fountain of the Church than in the gilded
   temple of the synagogue." [56] This scene, which was enacted far from
   human eyes in the depths of the desert solitude, is inimitably
   beautiful. It reveals the dispensation by which God seeks out in all
   places the soul which is seeking him, and leads his Church into full
   liberty by the exercise of his love. [57]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [31] 2 Kings xvii, 24. Josephus, "Antiq.," Book XI, c. viii, 6.

   [32] Josephus, "Antiq.," XII, c. i, 1.

   [33] Josephus, "Antiq.," XIII, c. ix.

   [34] Josephus, "Antiq.," XIII, c. xiv, 1.

   [35] Eisi gar toioutoi tēn phusin, en men tais sumphorais ontas tous
   Ioudaious arnountai sungeneis echein. Josephus, "Antiq.," Book XI, c.
   vi.

   [36] tois ellēnikois ethesin hairountai chrōmenoi zēn, . Josephus,
   "Antiq.," Book XII, c. v, 5.

   [37] "Prophetis non credunt Samaritæ, resurrectionem mortuorum negant."
   (Origen, "In Numeros," Homily XXV, 1.)

   [38] Epiphan., "Hæres," § 16.

   [39] "Die Samariter. Ein Beitrag," by Joseph Grimm, 1854, p. 99.

   [40] Ephasken heauton einai, ton prophēteuomenon christon. Orig.,
   "Comment in Johann," viii, 27. Kai autos huios tou theou. "Contra
   Celsus," vi, 17.

   [41] Epiphanes gives us quite another notion. According to him
   ("Hæres.," 13) Dositheus was a Jew, the founder of the sect of the
   Sadducees, which passed into Samaria after receiving some check in
   Judæa; but he has evidently confounded the Dositheus of Origen with the
   Dositheus of the Talmud. (Grimm, "Die Samarit.," 117.)

   [42] In the "Clementines" and the "Recognitiones," Simon represents
   heresy in general, and primarily St. Paul, who to the Ebionites was the
   supreme heretic.

   [43] See Justin Martyr, "Apologia," edition of 1686, p. 69. Justin
   asserts that in his time the following inscription was to be read at
   Rome: "Simoni Deo Sancto." But it is now admitted that, instead of
   Simoni, the word is Semoni. Semo was the Sabine Hercules worshiped at
   Rome.

   [44] Mageias empeiros hōn theopoiēsai heauton epecheirēse.
   "Philosoph.," p. 161, comp. with Justin Martyr, "Apol.," p. 69, and
   Irenæus, Book I, c. xxiii. We see by the testimony of the "Fathers,"
   that Simon of Gitton cannot be confounded with Simon of Cyprus, also a
   magician, of whom Josephus speaks. "Antiq.," XX, c. vii, 2.

   [45] "Philosoph.," 174.

   [46] Bunsen ("Hippolytus," vol. i, 43) proves the authenticity of these
   fragments, which are found in the "Philosophoumena," p. 163.

   [47] Houtós estin hē dunamis tou theou hē kaloumenē megalē Acts viii,
   10.

   [48] "Philosoph.," 163, 90.

   [49] Duo eisi taraphuades tōn holōn aiōnōn apo mius rhiēs hētis esti
   dunamis. sigē, aoratos akatalēptos hōn hē mia phHōinetai anōthen hētis
   hesti megalē dunamis, arsēn. Hē de hetera, epinoia megalē thēleia.
   "Philos.," 173, 60.

   [50] "Philosoph.," 163, 85. Our exposition of the system of Simon
   differs at once from that of Neander, ("Pflanzung," i, 79,) and from
   that of Grimm, ("Samarit.," p. 156.) The former, who could not have any
   acquaintance with the "Philosophoumena," has too much identified that
   which Simon called "the great power of God," with the Word of Philo.
   The ideas of the magician are much more incoherent than those of the
   Alexandrine Gnostic. The system of emanation is far from being clearly
   expressed by him. On the other hand, we cannot share Grimm's opinion
   that Simon asserted himself to be the supreme and absolute deity. Grimm
   dwells, in the first place, on the testimony of Justin, who says that
   the Samaritans regarded him as the first god, hōs ton prōton theon,
   (see Hippolytus, "Phil.," p. 161,) and on that of Irenæus, who affirms
   that Simon was worshiped under the name of Jupiter, ("Hæres.," i, 23.)
   But these testimonies simply signify that Simon declared himself to be
   the highest manifestation of the unknown God. We know that in the Greek
   Theogony Jupiter is not the first of the gods in date; he comes forth
   from Saturn, the ancient and primitive deity. Simon pretended to
   incarnate the first principle emerged from the potential fire, without
   likening himself to the potential fire itself. The passage in the
   "Philosophoumena," which we have already quoted, ("Phil.," p. 176, 60,)
   dispels all doubts in this respect. The "great power of God" is there
   clearly set forth as the male principle sprung from the eternal root of
   being. No doubt, in the pantheistic point of view, the eternal and
   potential principle is found in its manifestations. But the
   manifestation of a principle cannot be absolutely identified with the
   principle itself. There is between them a sort of hierarchy and
   subordination.

   [51] Is it not evident that the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by Philip
   received the Holy Ghost in the desert? The conversion of St. Paul was
   completed at Damascus, and it was Ananias who conferred the baptism
   upon him with the laying on of his hands, after the scales were fallen
   from his eyes, in token of the inward illumination which could be the
   work only of the Holy Spirit. Acts ix, 18.

   [52] In the "Act. Pauli et Petri," Simon dies, the victim of a rash
   challenge. He had promised to rise to heaven. St. Peter, with a word,
   made him fall to the earth crushed before the eyes of Nero. ("Act.
   Pauli et Petri," 33, Tischendorf edit.) According to the
   "Philosophoumena," he had himself shut up in a tomb at Rome, declaring
   that he would rise again the third day. "But," adds Hippolytus, "he
   remains there until now." "Philosoph.," p. 176.

   [53] Grimm, Die Samarit.," pp. 109, 110.

   [54] According to Pliny, the name of Candace was a dynastic name.
   ("Hist. Nat.," vi, 35.)

   [55] Eusebius, "H. E.," ii, 1. The fact that he was reading the
   Scriptures cannot prove, as Olshausen asserts, that he was a Jew, for
   he might easily have them in the Greek version, then widely diffused.

   [56] "Plus in deserto fonte Ecclesiæ reperuit quam in aurato synagogæ
   templo." (St. Jerome, "Eph.," ciii.)

   [57] The old historians of the Church (Eusebius, "H. E.," ii, 1)
   attribute to the converted eunuch a great share in the mission carried
   on in his country. Ethiopia was not, however, won to the Church till
   the fourth century, by the preaching of Frumentius and Edesius. Still,
   it is possible the efforts of the eunuch may not have been fruitless.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § III. Foundation of the Church of Antioch, and Conversion of the
   Centurion Cornelius.

   The dispersion of the Christians not only carried the Gospel into
   Samaria, but into the surrounding countries. Its seeds were scattered
   in many cities. Damascus, so important both from its geographical
   position and from its history, contained within its walls a strong
   Jewish colony. It is not surprising that Christianity should have there
   early gathered a large number of adherents, and that its progress
   should have alarmed the Sanhedrim. Acts ix, 2. The new religion had
   also disciples at Lydda and Joppa, maritime towns of Phœnicia. Acts ix,
   35, 36. Some unknown Christians had even carried it into the Isle of
   Cyprus, so famous for its worship of Venus; they had thus planted the
   religion of holiness in one of the most infamous hot-beds of pagan
   corruption. Acts xi, 19. But in all these different places the new
   faith had been cradled in the synagogue. It had not yet come into
   direct contact with the pagan world; its first step in this direction
   was taken at Samaria, the second was at Antioch. The foundation of the
   Church of that city is a leading event, the consequences of which to
   the early Church were incalculable. Antioch, the ancient residence of
   the Kings of Syria, built on the banks of the river Orontes, in a
   fertile plain, had become one of the capitals of pagan civilization,
   one of the great centers where East and West mingled their brilliant
   and refined culture. The beauty of its buildings, its large population,
   its wide commerce, its artistic advancement and its wealth, made it,
   according to Josephus, the third city in the empire. [58] It was, on
   the testimony of Cicero, a city where men of cultivation abounded and
   where the liberal arts flourished. [59] The Jews had there, as in all
   other places, founded a colony, but the Christian mission did not
   confine itself within the bounds of the synagogue. It was undertaken by
   some of those Hellenist Jews who had been converted on the day of
   Pentecost. The Gospel was preached at Antioch by disciples from Cyprus
   and from Cyrene, (Acts xi, 19, 20; comp. Acts ii, 10,) who belonged to
   the most liberal section of the Church at Jerusalem, and who had
   probably been especially attached to Stephen. The direct inheritors of
   the great thought which had animated the proto-martyr, they perceived,
   as he had done, that the new covenant rested upon a wider basis than
   the old. Thus they went at once to the heathen. "They spake unto the
   Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus." Acts xi, 20. These were soon
   converted in large numbers, and the first Church outside of Judaism was
   founded. Thus the world's gates were opened to the Christian
   mission—those gates which, until then, Jewish prejudice had kept
   closed. From this day the new religion takes its true position; it
   invites Hellenism as freely as Judaism, the West no less than the East,
   and it rises for the first time to the comprehension of those words of
   the Master, "The field is the world." On the other hand, the foundation
   of the Church at Antioch foreshadows the transformation, or rather the
   development, of the primitive apostolate. It was founded without the
   assistance of the twelve Apostles. The opinion that Peter was the first
   Bishop of Antioch has no foundation, [60] and must be ascribed to
   episcopal preconceptions. According to St. Luke, the Church at Antioch
   owed its origin to the Hellenist Jews of Cyprus and Cyrene; the Church
   at Jerusalem did not send an Apostle to it, but a simple Evangelist,
   Barnabas. God designed thus to show that the apostolate of the twelve
   was not the only and necessary channel of his grace, but that Christian
   activity, putting forth its strength and evidencing its lawfulness by
   great and splendid results, received in those very results divine
   sanction. This new apostolate is conferred directly by the Holy Spirit,
   and is independent ofany special institution. Stephen had already been
   invested with it; St. Paul was soon to unite in one person all its
   gifts, and to claim all its privileges; the Church was destined to see
   it perpetuated from age to age, less richly endowed, but still powerful
   to reform and to renew. [61]

   The Church of Antioch was early distinguished for the abundance of its
   extraordinary gifts. It had numerous prophets. The new religion,
   released from the restraints of Judaism, there expanded in all its
   freedom and beauty. At Antioch it first became known by its true name.
   This was doubtless given it by the multitude, who witnessed its
   development and progress. The name Christian showed the dawning
   comprehension that the Church was not simply a Jewish sect. No one at
   Jerusalem, seeing the disciples in the temple, had thought of seeking
   for them a new name. This new name revealed the greatness of the
   revolution just wrought. It is important to observe that the earliest
   Church called out of the midst of paganism was the first to bear it. It
   was also from Antioch, as we shall see, that Paul set forth on his
   missionary journeys. Antioch was, in a manner, the Jerusalem of the
   Gentile world.

   At this very time the Apostle Peter was led, by a miraculous
   dispensation of God, to shake off the yoke of Jewish exclusiveness.
   Notwithstanding the success of his mission in Samaria, he had not
   abjured his old notions; he still thought that all the prescriptions of
   the Mosaic law were in force. It was of the utmost importance that the
   Apostle whose activity and influence were paramount at this period,
   should be won over to the cause of a world-wide Christianity. God
   brought about this result in a most remarkable manner, by the
   coincident illumination of a special revelation and of personal
   experience. There lived at this time in the town of Cæsarea a Roman
   centurion named Cornelius, belonging to the Italian cohort, which
   maintained in those countries the authority of Rome. A heathen by
   birth, but conscious, like so many of his contemporaries, of
   unsatisfied religious needs, Cornelius had, from his first contact with
   the synagogue, forsaken the worship of false gods, and embraced the
   Jewish faith. Acts x, 1. But he had not found even in it satisfaction
   of heart. His upright and pious soul sought and required a more
   complete response to its cravings. It is probable that Cornelius may
   have already heard of the new religion and of St. Peter, for the angel
   who appears to him merely mentions the name of the Apostle, and
   Cornelius understands without further explanation. The vague rumor of
   Christianity which had reached him had perhaps rendered his prayers
   more fervent. However this may be, as he was in prayer, he suddenly saw
   in a vision an angel of God, who told him that his prayers were heard,
   and bade him send for the Apostle Peter. Acts x, 3-8. At the same
   moment Peter, who was at Joppa, received a revelation which was to
   prepare him to accede to the request of Cornelius.

   This revelation seems, at the first glance, to have reference only to
   the distinction between clean and unclean animals. Acts x, 10-17. But
   all the institutions of Judaism were closely connected. The distinction
   between animals rested on the same principle as the distinction between
   days, places, and men. Till redemption had been wrought out, the
   original taint infected every thing in a world under the curse. It was
   only by exception that certain men, certain days, certain fruits of the
   ground, certain animals, were raised in part above the universal
   defilement. The Jewish people was the only fraction of humanity which
   was not profane; the distinction between the clean and unclean animals
   symbolized, therefore, one far more important, namely, the distinction
   between men. When Peter says, "I have never eaten any thing common or
   unclean," he speaks as a Jew; he is pointing to the legal distinction
   between men and things. The reply which he receives shows him the
   meaning of the new covenant. God, by the blood of redemption, has in
   truth purified all that was defiled. The distinction between a holy
   people and an unholy race is done away, like that between animals clean
   and unclean; and thus Peter may and must go and preach the Gospel to
   Cornelius the Roman.

   We know what were the results of his preaching. The miracle of
   Pentecost was wrought afresh on these converts from heathenism, and
   Peter exclaimed, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
   baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts x, 47.
   In these words he boldly proclaimed Christianity to be wide as the
   world. The death of Stephen was bearing its fruits, and a career, wide
   as the world, was opening to apostolic missions. Paul had only to go
   forth into it. Thus the Church made progress, step by step, in its path
   of light, guided by the Holy Spirit, and taught by the lessons of
   experience. Revelation seemed at the same moment to come down from
   heaven, and to spring up in human hearts; so true is it that the Spirit
   of God, ever secure of attaining its ends without the aid of magic,
   never consents to do violence to that noblest of instruments, human
   freedom. But though gained at Antioch and at Cæsarea, the cause of
   Gentile Christianity was not yet triumphant at Jerusalem. We must now
   follow the discussion which arose on the conversion of the Centurion
   Cornelius. [62] when he was reproved by St. Paul. From this
   contradiction it has been attempted to draw arguments against the
   authenticity of the narrative. Surely this is to lose sight of the
   inconsistency so characteristic of all human actions. [63]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [58] Josephus, "Bell. Judaic," Book III, c. xxiv.

   [59] "Celeber quondam urbs et copiosa, atque eruditissimis hominibus
   liberalissimisque studiis affluens." Cicero "Pro. Arch. Poeta," c. iii.

   [60] The tradition which attributes to Peter the foundation and
   government of the Church at Antioch is of very ancient date. Eusebius
   records it, ("H. E.," ii, 36,) and St. Jerome also ("De viris
   illustribus, 1;) and Origen confirmed it in these words: "Ignatium dico
   episcopum Antiochiæ post Petrum secundum." ("In Luc.," Homily I, vol.
   iii.) The "Liber Pontificalis" only copies the "Fathers," as does
   Baronius, ("Annals," i, 245,) and with him all the Catholic writers,
   (Lenain de Tillemont, "Mémoires," i, p. I67.) But the silence of the
   writer of the Acts invalidates all these witnesses. We shall show
   presently that the episcopate did not exist at this period. The origin
   of the legend is easily explicable. Episcopal notions soon necessitated
   the retrospective regularization of the Church at Antioch. From a
   hierarchical point of view it was impossible to adhere to the narrative
   in the Acts, which attributed the foundation of that Church to mere
   Evangelists. It was known that Peter had at the same period traveled
   into the neighboring countries. What more natural than to make him the
   first Bishop of Antioch?

   [61] See Baumgarten, "Die Apost. Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom.," i, p.
   257.

   [62] Difficulties have been raised about the liberal action of Peter at
   Cæsarea and the timidity subsequently shown by him at Antioch,

   [63]
     __________________________________________________________________

   § IV. The Church at Jerusalem at the time of the First Mission beyond
   Judæa.

   The Christians who had remained at Jeursalem had experienced no change
   in their religious convictions. They had taken no part in the
   missionary work in Samaria, Antioch, and Cæsarea. Living in the center
   of Judaism, in the immediate neighborhood of the temple, where they
   daily offered the sacrifices commanded by the law, it would cost them
   much to shake off their national prejudices. Thus they learned with
   astonishment that Peter had entered the house of a Gentile, had eaten
   with him, and treated him as a brother. They reproached him sharply.
   "Thou wentest in," they said, "unto men uncircumcised, and didst eat
   with them." Acts xi, 3. In other words: "Thou hast trampled under foot
   the most sacred prescriptions of the law; thou hast denied the religion
   of thy fathers, which, as a fundamental principle, commands absolute
   separation from strangers." Peter replied to the charge by an account
   of the conversion of Cornelius and of the foregoing revelations,
   setting before his brethren the same effectual demonstration which God
   had used to convince him, and which is the sovereign logic of One whose
   word gives its own translation in marvelous and undeniable miracles.
   What answer could there be to such arguments, powerfully summed up in
   the words, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did
   unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I
   could withstand God?" Acts xi, 17. The Christians at Jerusalem were
   convinced. It must not be supposed, however, that the question was
   finally settled, and all dissent made impossible. We must ever remember
   the instability of the human mind, its vacillations and
   inconsistencies. First impressions rapidly wear off, and others come in
   their stead. The sacred story, by preserving the trace of these
   fluctuations of opinion in the primitive Church, gives a strong proof
   of its historical truthfulness. Let us further observe that the
   admission of Gentiles into the Church did not necessarily involve the
   complete abrogation of all distinctions of nationality under the new
   law. It was necessary to know if circumcision was or was not obligatory
   on all the new converts. This was the point of the question, and it was
   not yet ripe for solution. The acute dialectics of Paul, the broad
   discussions of the Council at Jerusalem, and the ardent polemics of the
   succeeding period, were all needed before its final decision.

   The simple machinery of the primitive Church had just been completed at
   Jerusalem. A new office had been created—that of elders. Acts xi, 30.
   It is of great moment to us to determine exactly its origin and its
   functions; only by this means can we judge fairly the pretensions of
   the various ecclesiastical systems. The office of elder was not without
   precedent. We find it in those numerous synagogues in which the Jews,
   distant from Jerusalem, met on the Sabbath to read the Scriptures. We
   have elsewhere spoken of the simple and democratic constitution of the
   synagogues. Each one was governed by a sort of senate or council, whose
   authority was much like that of the judges appointed in each town on
   the conquest of the promised land. Deut. xvi, 18. The functions of this
   council were clearly defined. It was to regulate authoritatively all
   matters relating to worship, and was not restricted to simply
   administrative measures. The reading and explanation of the holy books
   belonged by right to its members. These were called "zakanim," or
   elders. This appellation, we learn from positive statements, indicated
   not so much maturity of age as of wisdom and intellectual merit. [64]
   The council of the synagogue had a president, called the ruler of the
   synagogue, or master, or rabbi; his influence was very great wherever
   the council was small, as in towns where there was but an insignificant
   colony of Jews. [65] But the ruler of the synagogue had no peculiar
   dignity which raised him above his colleagues in the hierarchy. He was
   the first among his peers, primus inter pares. Unquestionable passages
   prove that the same synagogue often had several rulers or presidents.
   [66] All the elders probably occupied the position in turn. Such an
   organization was essentially democratic; it presents no analogy with
   the Levitical priesthood, or the episcopacy of the third century.

   When we read in the Acts of the Apostles, without further explanation,
   that the Church of Jerusalem appointed for itself elders, it is clear
   that the office in question must be one already known, and the name of
   which would convey distinct ideas. Had it been otherwise, the sacred
   historian would have used a new word to designate an entirely new
   institution; he certainly would not have connected the sacerdotal
   hierarchy in the Church with the democratic rule of the synagogue, when
   it would have been so easy to borrow from the Jewish priesthood its
   honorable titles. To suppose, as do the advocates of hierarchical
   theories, that the first elders were probably the first converted
   priests, who received a fresh ordination from the hands of the
   Apostles, is to build the whole sacerdotal system upon a pure
   hypothesis. [67]

   The sacred historian gives no details of the nomination of the first
   elders. We may hence conclude that there was no formal institution of
   the office. The Apostles were often called away from Jerusalem. The
   young Church, though richly supplied with the gifts of the Spirit,
   could not dispense with some direction in its daily progress and in its
   worship. The wisest step was to borrow from the synagogue the
   institution of elders, so admirably adapted to the new dispensation.
   Besides, the seven deacons first appointed had been more than deacons.
   They had taught with power, and fulfilled by anticipation the office of
   elders. Just as the diaconate had grown out of the apostolate, so the
   office of elders was in part an offshoot from the primitive diaconate,
   and thus the organization of the Church went on perfecting itself by
   the division of labor. The Apostles gave their sanction to the creation
   of the new office, but the narrative contains no trace of any solemn
   institution or special revelation. The Church had, in this respect, no
   other revelation to await than that of its own needs. It was not
   creating either a priesthood or a clergy, but simply a ministry adapted
   to the spirit of the new dispensation. It was doubtless acting in
   obedience to its guiding inspiration, but no direct intervention of God
   was necessary, as though a new priesthood was to be instituted. It is
   beyond question that the elders, like the deacons, were chosen by the
   whole assembly. Their part in the Church at Jerusalem cannot be exactly
   defined: they formed its council; they directed without coercing it;
   they read and explained the Scriptures, at times when no extraordinary
   gifts were manifested. In the second period of the apostolic age we
   shall find their functions assuming more importance. At that stage,
   also, the question of the identity of the bishop and the elder will
   come before us for solution. At Jerusalem, as in all the Churches of
   Jewish origin, elders alone were known. The name bishop appears only in
   the Churches of Greek origin.

   Side by side with the elders we find the prophets. The gift of prophecy
   was distinguished from the other operations of the Spirit by its sudden
   and powerful character. The prophets of the primitive Church were not
   called only to communicate to the Church revelations as to the future,
   such as those put into the mouth of Agabus. Acts xi, 28. Like the
   prophets of the Old Testament, they addressed themselves to the hearts
   and consciences of their hearers; the prophetic character manifested
   itself in the remarkable efficacy of their words. Barnabas, placed
   among the prophets, had been surnamed "The Son of Consolation."
   Edifying and consoling sermons were thus accounted as prophecies when
   they were accompanied with peculiar power. [68]

   A short time after the return of Peter to Jerusalem persecution broke
   out anew, raised this time, not by the priests or the rabbis, but by
   the King, Herod Agrippa; it was employed by him as a means of gaining
   popularity. This prince succeeded in uniting under his scepter all the
   countries over which his uncle, Herod the Great, had reigned. Having
   crept to the throne by flattery, he kept his seat by the same means,
   servilely pandering to vulgar prejudices. The time was gone when the
   Church was in favor with all the people; persecution was beginning to
   become popular; it was to retain this character during three centuries,
   for nothing is more odious to the great mass of men than the law of
   holiness when its requirements are once rightly understood. James, the
   son of Zebedee, was beheaded by the King's commandment. Acts xii, 1, 2.
   He was the first apostle-martyr. His place was not filled up. Eusebius
   relates, on the authority of Clement of Alexandria, an incident of his
   martyrdom, which we see no reason to discredit. The false witness, who
   had deposed against James, was touched by the sight of the courage and
   constancy of the Apostle; he avowed himself a Christian, and was
   visited with the same sentence. As he was being led forth with James to
   death, he asked his forgiveness. The Apostle looked at him for some
   moments, then embracing him, said, "Peace be with thee." Both perished
   together by the sword. [69]

   Herod was anxious next to strike a blow at the Apostle who had most
   powerfully drawn upon himself the attention of the people, and had thus
   enkindled the most bitter hatred. He caused Peter to be thrown into
   prison and condemned to speedy death. The alarmed disciples gathered in
   the house of Mary, the mother of Mark, to entreat help from God in this
   terrible crisis. Threatened with a blow which would overturn one of the
   pillars of the Church, they lift up earnest prayers to Heaven. Suddenly
   Peter himself, delivered by a miracle, knocks at the door of the house,
   and comes to teach them the omnipotence of prayer, which they were yet
   slow to believe, as their incredulity of his presence proves. Soon
   after Herod died, smitten with righteous judgment from God. He had gone
   to Cæsarea to decide some differences with the inhabitants of Tyre and
   Sidon, and to celebrate games in honor of the recovery of Claudius. He
   was received with the utmost enthusiasm. Appearing on the second day of
   the games arrayed in a silver tunic, on which the rays of the early
   morning shed a dazzling brightness, he excited universal admiration,
   and his flatterers even carried their adulation so far as to call him a
   god. In that very moment he was smitten with a loathsome disease; eaten
   of worms, he died, exclaiming, "I, the god, am about to die; death has
   already seized him whom men called immortal." [70] This event produced
   a deep impression upon the Church, which saw in it the direct
   intervention of God for its protection and the chastisement of its
   enemies.

   According to tradition, St. Peter went to Rome after his deliverance,
   and the excitement caused in the Jewish colony by his preaching
   provoked the severe measures taken by Claudius against the Jews. [71]
   But the presence of Peter in the Council at Jerusalem, which took place
   very shortly after, disproves this assertion. He probably continued to
   preach the Gospel through all the regions of Asia Minor, where his
   influence was still so great during the following period. The defenders
   of the hierarchy affirm that after the persecution under Herod Agrippa,
   the Apostles divided the world among them, and drew their field of
   labor by lot. [72] To what lengths will not the desire lead to paint
   the past with the colors of the present, and to substitute for the
   spirituality of the early days an official character and the machinery
   of a hierarchy! It is not possible to go further than this in the
   untrue rendering of facts. The opinion which attributes to the
   Apostles, at the same time, the compilation of the creed which bears
   their name, is equally without foundation. The day of Pentecost was not
   yet far enough removed for the reduction of faith to rule.

   The same preconception, and the same disposition to transfer the
   institutions of the third century of the Church into the first, have
   led to an imaginary recognition of the episcopate in the entirely moral
   preeminence which James, [73] the Lord's brother, enjoyed in the Church
   at Jerusalem. This, however, is capable of a most simple explanation.
   His relationship to Jesus Christ had an inestimable value in the eyes
   of the first Christians, who felt themselves under no obligation to
   repudiate the natural and indestructible feelings of the human heart.
   The character of James, his piety, and the very form which it assumed,
   all contributed to increase his influence at Jerusalem. Profoundly
   attached to the religion of his fathers, he had watched, not without
   alarm, the first contests between Jesus Christ and the representatives
   of the ancient worship. He had only gradually learned to take broader
   views; the resurrection of the Saviour seems to have vanquished his
   latent hesitation; but this hesitation did not spring from pride or
   obstinacy; his scruples were those of a strong but unenlightened piety,
   which was startled by any change introduced into the order established
   by God. The testimony concerning James of an old historian of the
   Church gives us a key to the position he filled. "James, the brother of
   the Lord," we read in Eusebius, who quotes Hegesippus, [74] "known
   universally by the surname of 'The Just,' shared with the Apostles the
   direction of the Church. He was holy from his mother's womb. He drank
   neither wine nor strong drink, and abstained from all meat. . . . He
   alone might enter into the holy place; [75] for his raiment was simply
   of linen. He was accustomed to go into the temple alone. There he was
   found prostrate before God, seeking forgiveness for the sins of the
   people. His knees were worn like those of a camel, so constantly were
   they bent before God in intercession for the people. Because of the
   excellence of his justice he was surnamed 'The Just,' the Oblias, [76]
   which signifies the bulwark of the people, and righteousness." Those
   who pretend that Christianity was originally very little distinguished
   from Judaism lay much stress on this passage. [77] They forget that
   Hegesippus is unfolding before us the whole life of James from his
   childhood to his death. Set apart as a Nazarite from his earliest
   years, he adhered scrupulously to the practices of the sect. But there
   is nothing in the description of Hegesippus to forbid the supposition
   that after his conversion he may have used greater freedom, though he,
   with the whole Church of Hebrew origin, continued to observe the
   institutions of Moses. His conduct in the Council at Jerusalem, and his
   Epistle, abundantly prove that, in his view, the Christian was not in
   all points like the Nazarite. It is, nevertheless, certain that he
   remained in heart attached to Judaism, and that the new religion was
   primarily, in his eyes, a fulfillment of prophecy. His patriotism was
   wholly unlike that of the proud Pharisees of the time, for he was best
   known by his fervent prayers for Jerusalem, and his tears over the sins
   of his people. He was a determined enemy of false Judaism, a true child
   of Abraham, one of those who yearned for the divine Isaac. None was a
   more forcible preacher of repentance than he. James was, in a manner,
   the John the Baptist of the apostolic age—a new forerunner making the
   paths straight for the law of liberty. He was a Jew after God's own
   heart, gladly accepting the realization of his promises, and thus
   accomplishing the transition from Judaism to Christianity. He is, in
   fact, the purest type we have of the Israelite indeed; he thus truly
   belongs to the new covenant, the mission of which is to bring to
   perfection all that existed in germ in the old. The Lord's brother
   repeats, in his life, the Sermon on the Mount; by holiness he prepared
   the way for progress, freeing the law of the spirit from the law of the
   letter, as the ripened grain shakes off the enveloping husk.

   It is not then necessary, in order to explain the influence of such a
   man, to have recourse to apostolic investiture. [78] Respected and
   beloved by the people, who witnessed his zeal in the temple, he
   exercised great moral authority over the Church at Jerusalem, of which
   he was in truth the representative. According to Clement of Alexandria,
   James was like a ruler of the synagogue in the Church at Jerusalem—that
   is to say, the first among his equals. It is probable that he obtained
   this consideration by the sole ascendency of his piety. Hegesippus
   clearly states that he took part in the government of the Church at the
   same time with Peter and John. His right was equal to theirs; and it
   did not need for its exercise either a constituted hierarchy or
   apostolic succession.

   The Church at Jerusalem continues, during this period, a religious
   center for all the Christians. From it go. forth the first
   missionaries; it sends spontaneously delegates into the countries where
   the Gospel has already gained some ground, as in Samaria and at
   Antioch. In later times important conferences on the question of the
   admission to baptism of Gentile converts will be held within it. It
   could hardly have been otherwise in the first period. This central
   position resulted from the situation of the new Churches, from their
   weakness and inexperience. But it would be a grave misconception to
   regard Jerusalem as the Rome of the first century; this would be to
   forget altogether the difference of the times.

   We have seen, after the brief phase of the Church's history when all
   was miraculous and supernatural, the commencement of internal division.
   The teaching and martyrdom of Stephen, the mission in Samaria, the
   formation of the Church at Antioch, the conversion of Cornelius, all
   these events, which followed each other rapidly, brought into full view
   the question of the relations of Christianity with Judaism. The
   discussion is to take still broader ground, through the influence of
   St. Paul; it will be at times envenomed by the evil passions of the
   false teachers of Galatia and the schismatics of Corinth, but we shall
   see it, nevertheless, steadily advancing to its solution, by means of
   wholesome experience and brotherly consultations, in which the free and
   living character of the inspiration of the new covenant will strikingly
   appear; but we shall find no radical opposition between the disputants;
   and the theories which suppose two irreconcilable forms of Christianity
   in the apostolic Church will prove to be as fabulous as the legends of
   tradition.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [64] "Nullus est senex nisi qui sibi acquisivit sapientiam." Vitringa,
   "De Synag.," III, c. i, p. 616.

   [65] Vitringa, II, 10.

   [66] In Matt. ix, 18, we read of one of the rulers of the synagogue. So
   in Acts xviii, 8, 17, the rulers of the synagogue are mentioned at
   Corinth, where there was only one synagogue. (Vitringa "De Synag.
   Vetere," pp. 584, 585.) See also Justin Martyr, " Dial. cum Trypho," p.
   366. Hopoia didaskusin hoi Archisunagōgoi humōn meta tēn proseuchēn..
   Traces of this identity of the rulers of the synagogue and the elders
   are met with in the "Theodosian Code." There we find these words:
   "Neque licentiam habebunt hi qui ab iis majores omnibus Archiphericitæ
   aut presbyteri, forsitan vel magistri, appellantur anathematismis hoc
   prohibere." Vitringa, "De Synagog. Vetere," page 590.

   [67] Thiersch, work quoted, p. 78.

   [68] Neander, "Pflanz.," p. 59.

   [69] O de holigon skepsamenos, eirēnē sui eipe, kai katephilēsen auton.
   Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 9.

   [70] Kai ho klētheis athanatos ēdē thanōn apagomai. Josephus, "Antiq.,"
   XIX, c. viii, 2. Josephus states that Herod, at the moment he was
   hailed as a god, saw a screech-owl, which he regarded as an omen of
   evil.

   [71] Thiersch's work quoted, p. 97. Baronius, "Annals," i, 273. Lenain
   de Tillemont (i, p. 70) places the journey of the Apostle to Rome
   before his imprisonment; but how then explain the silence of the Acts?
   The testimony of the "Fathers" on this point is altogether wanting in
   precision. Eusebius, (ii, 14, 15,) in order to prove the presence of
   Peter at Rome in the time of Claudius, rests upon the tradition (proved
   to be untrue) of his contest with Simon Magus. The "Liber Pontificalis"
   declares explicitly that he did not go to Rome under Claudius. "Hic
   Petrus ingressus in urbem Romam sub Nerone Cæsare."—"Liber
   Pontificalis," p. 11.

   [72] Leo, "Sermo," I. Baronius, "Annals," i, 273.

   [73] The question whether James, the Lord's brother, is another than
   James the son of Alpheus, one of the twelve Apostles, is one of the
   most controverted points of criticism. In maintaining the identity of
   the two it is urged that James the son of Alpheus, being clearly
   related to Jesus Christ, through his mother, (John xix, 25,) the name
   of brother may be only an extension of the term of kindred. Galatians
   i, 19, is also brought forward, in which James, the brother of the
   Lord, is named among the Apostles. But these reasons appear to us
   insufficient. It is evidently a dogmatic bias which has led to the
   attempt to change the natural signification of the word adelphos. As to
   the designation "Apostle," applied by St. Paul to James, it presents no
   difficulty if the gradual extension of the ideas of the apostolate be
   admitted. The oldest tradition in the Church favors our opinion: it
   represents James as the Lord's own brother. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl.,"
   ii, 25) is as explicit as possible upon this point. James, in his
   Epistle, does not describe himself as an Apostle. John says that the
   Lord's brethren had not believed on him when James, the son of Alpheus,
   was already in the ranks of the Apostles. John vii, 5. Finally, in Acts
   i, 13, 14, the brethren of the Lord are distinctly mentioned in
   addition to the Apostles, consequently they were not one and the same.
   See Winer "Realworterbuch," vol. i, p. 217.

   [74] Diadechetai tēn ekklēsian. "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 23.

   [75] Toutō monō exēn eis ta agia eisienai "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 23.

   [76] Dia tēn uperbulēn eus dikaiosunēs autou ekaleito Dikaios kai
   Ōblias. Ibid.

   [77] Schwegler, "Nachapost. Zeitalt.," i, 137.

   [78] This is the assumption of Thiersch.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER III.

    CONVERSION OF PAUL. HIS FIRST MISSION.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § I. Saul of Tarsus. His Preparation and Conversion.

   EVERY great truth which is to win a triumphant way must become
   incarnate in some one man, and derive from a living, fervent heart that
   passion and power which constrain and subdue. So long as it remains in
   the cold region of mere ideas it exercises no mighty influence over
   mankind. The truths of religion are not exceptions to this law. God,
   therefore, prepared a man who was to represent, in the primitive
   Church, the great cause of the emancipation of Christianity, and whose
   mission it was to free it completely from the bonds of the synagogue.
   This man was St. Paul, and never had noble truth a nobler organ. He
   brought to its service an heroic heart, in which fervent love was
   joined to indomitable courage, and a mind equally able to rise to the
   loftiest heights of speculation and to penetrate into the deepest
   recesses of the human soul. All these great qualities were enhanced by
   absolute devotedness to Jesus Christ, and a self-abnegation such as,
   apart from the sacrifice of the Redeemer, has had no parallel upon
   earth. His life was one perpetual offering up of himself. His
   sufferings have contributed, no less than his indefatigable activity,
   to the triumph of his principles. Standing ever in the breach for their
   defense—subject to most painful contradictions, not only from the Jews,
   but from his brethren—execrated by his own nation—maligned by a fanatic
   and intolerant section of the Church, and threatened with death by
   those Gentiles whose claims he so boldly advocated—he suffered as
   scarcely any other has suffered in the service of truth; but he left
   behind a testimony most weighty and powerful, every word sealed with
   the seal of the martyr. Paul was the first missionary to the Gentile
   world, and he thus effectually inaugurated the universal triumph of
   Christianity. It was needful that the door of the Church should be
   opened to the thousands of proselytes from Corinth, Athens, Ephesus,
   and Rome, who came up to it and knocked. But the great Apostle of the
   Gentiles was not satisfied with this irresistible argument from facts;
   he added to it reasoning equally able and eloquent, and, armed with
   dialectics perfectly adapted to the habits of mind of his opponents, he
   victoriously established his principles.

   The epistles in which these reasonings have in part come down to us,
   bear on every page the impress of his heart and mind; they show ns the
   whole man, and the very style depicts in vivid characters his moral
   physiognomy. His polemics are especially admirable, because with him a
   negation always leads to a weightier affirmation; he never destroys
   without replacing, and, like his Master, abolishes only by fulfilling.
   He is not only an incomparable dialectician in the subversion of error,
   but he is able also to discern all the consequences of a truth, and to
   grasp its marrow and inner substance. This great controversialist is,
   therefore, at the same time, the first representative of that true
   Christian mysticism which St. John was so fully to develop. St. Paul
   triumphed over Judaism only by putting in its place Christianity in all
   its breadth and beauty. What holiness, strength, nobleness of character
   he displayed in the course of his ministry will appear as we trace his
   history. St. Paul is the type of the reformer in the Church; in every
   fresh struggle for the Church's freedom, his will be the track in which
   courageous Christians will follow. No true reformation can be wrought
   in any spirit other than that of Paul—a spirit equally removed from the
   timidity which preserves that which should be destroyed, and the
   rashness which destroys that which should be preserved.

   When God is forming a powerful instrument for the accomplishment of his
   designs, the process of preparation is long and gradual. Every
   circumstance is brought to bear on the education of the chosen witness,
   and every experience, even of wrong and error, is made to enhance the
   power and completeness of the testimony rendered. When a man is called
   to effect some great religious reformation, it is important that he
   should himself have an experimental acquaintance with the order of
   things which he is to reverse or transform. The education of Paul the
   Pharisee, was to him what the convent of Erfurt was to Luther. It was
   well that he who was to break the yoke of Jewish legalism should
   himself have first suffered under its bondage. Thus, while the question
   of the emancipation of Christianity had been stated by men belonging,
   like Stephen, to the most liberal section of Judaism—the Hellenist
   Jews—it was to receive its final solution from a man who had himself
   felt the full weight of the yoke.

   Saul belonged to a Jewish family, rigidly attached to the sect of the
   Pharisees. His name, which signifies "The desired one," has led some
   commentators [79] to suppose that he, being born, like Samuel, after
   hope long delayed, was, like him, specially consecrated by his parents
   to the service of God, and, therefore, sent from his early childhood to
   Jerusalem to study the sacred writings in the most famous school of the
   age. However this may be, it is evident that his mind had a natural
   bent toward such studies. He may have received some intellectual
   development in his own city. Strabo tells us that literary and
   philosophical studies had been carried so far at Tarsus that the
   schools of Cilicia eclipsed those of Athens and of Alexandria. [80] It
   appears, however, from the evidence of Philostratus, that a light and
   rhetorical school of learning predominated at Tarsus; more attention
   was paid to brilliance of expression than to depth of philosophical
   thought. [81] The life of the East there reveled in boundless luxury,
   and the corruption of manners reached its utmost length. The young Jew,
   endowed with a high-toned morality, may well have conceived a deep
   disgust for this pagan civilization; and these first impressions may
   have tended to develop in him an excessive attachment to the religion
   of his fathers.

   We may, probably, attribute to his abode at Tarsus the literary culture
   displayed in his writings. He familiarly quotes the Greek poets, and
   poets of the second order, such as Cleanthes, (Acts xvii, 28,)
   Menander, (1 Cor. xv, 33,) and Epimenides, (Titus i, 12.) According to
   the custom of the rabbis of the time, he had learned a manual trade,
   and as the Cicilian fabrics of goats' hair were famous for their
   strength, he had chosen the calling of a tent-maker.

   Jerusalem was the place of his true education. He was placed in the
   school of Gamaliel, the most celebrated rabbi of his age. Acts xxii, 3.
   We know how fully the scholastic spirit was developed among the Jews at
   this period. To the schools of the prophets had succeeded the schools
   of the rabbis; the living productions of the Divine Spirit had been
   replaced by commentaries of minutest detail, and the sacred text seemed
   in danger of being completely overgrown by rabbinical glosses, as by a
   parasitic vegetation.

   While an ingenious and learned school, formed at Alexandria, had
   contrived by a system of allegorical interpretation to infuse Platonism
   into the Old Testament, the school at Jerusalem had been growing
   increasingly rigid, and interdicted any such daring exegesis. It clung
   with fanatic attachment to the letter of the Scriptures, but, failing
   to comprehend the spirit, it sunk into all the puerilities of a narrow
   literalism. Its interpretations lacked both breadth and depth; it
   surrendered itself to the subtilties of purely verbal dialectics.
   Cleverly to combine texts—to suspend on a single word the thin threads
   of an ingenious argument—such was the sole concern of the rabbis.
   Gamaliel appears to have been the most skilled of all the doctors of
   the law. He is still venerated in Jewish tradition under the title of
   "Gamaliel the Aged." The "Mishna" quotes him as an authority. We are
   inclined to believe that he may have been less in bondage than the
   other doctors of his day to narrow literalism, and that he may have
   maintained a spirit more upright and elevated. His benevolent
   intervention on behalf of the Church at Jerusalem distinguishes him
   honorably from those implacable Jews, who were ready to defend their
   prejudices by bloody persecutions. The fact of his having had a
   disciple like Saul of Tarsus, who must have been through his whole life
   characterized by a grave moral earnestness, leads us to suppose a true
   superiority in the teaching of Gamaliel. He had not got beyond the
   stand-point of legalism, but this he at least presented in its
   unimpaired and unabated majesty. He was not a man to delude the
   conscience with subterfuges, and his disciples were therefore disposed
   to austerity of life, and were distinguished by a scrupulous fidelity
   to the religion of their fathers.

   Saul of Tarsus embraced the teaching of his illustrious master with
   characteristic earnestness and ardor, and, it must be added, infused
   into it all the passionate vehemence belonging to his nature. At the
   feet of Gamaliel, he became practiced in those skillful dialectics
   which were the pride of the rabbinical schools, and he thus received
   from Judaism itself the formidable weapon with which he was afterward
   to deal it such mortal blows. Here he gained a profound knowledge of
   the Old Testament. Gifted with a strong and keen intellect, he in a few
   years acquired all the learning of his master. He thus amassed, without
   knowing it, precious materials for his future polemics; but his moral
   and religious development in this phase of his life is of more
   importance to us than his intellectual acquirements. With all his
   knowledge, he might have become, at the most, the first of Jewish
   doctors, surpassing even Gamaliel, and shedding some glory on the
   decadence of his people; but he could never have derived from that vast
   learning the spirit of the reformer, which was to make him immortal in
   the Church. It is in the depths of his inner life we must seek the
   distinctive character of his early piety; he has himself accurately
   described it when he says, that being "taught according to the perfect
   manner of the law of the fathers," he "was zealous toward God." Acts
   xxii, 3. In other words, he carried into his exalted Judaism a truly
   religious spirit, and he was animated by a sincere desire to serve God.
   Herein was the germ of a possible transformation; and it was through
   this, his moral nature, that the transformation would subsequently be
   wrought.

   In times of spiritual crisis, when mankind is breathlessly awaiting a
   great religious revolution, the common hope and expectation are
   manifested in two extremes of conduct. Some men openly abandon ancient
   forms: others cling to them with desperation, and demand from them with
   feverish impatience the satisfaction of the new cravings of their
   souls; their morbid excitement is in itself an evidence that they have
   not escaped the universal restlessness. They push to its furthest
   logical issues the principle in which they wish to believe; it is clear
   that they are themselves dissatisfied with its existing application,
   and seek in this way to appease their unquiet hearts. Such a cleaving
   to the past is, in truth, an aspiration after something beyond, an
   appeal for a new religious life. If we look closely at Saul of Tarsus
   while he is still a Pharisee, we shall discern in his manner of bearing
   the yoke a prophecy that he will one day cast it off. We find no
   likeness in him to those self-complacent Pharisees whose hypocrisy
   Christ painted in colors of fire. He does not seek to deceive God and
   men by vain forms, nor flatter his conscience that he has satisfied'
   the law when he has paid tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin. This
   young Jew is a zealous and scrupulous observer of all the ordinances of
   Moses; he receives them with all seriousness; he practices them with
   all sincerity and exactness. Let us listen to his own words: "I
   profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals (in years) in mine
   own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my
   fathers." Gal. i, 14. He declares again that he was "as touching the
   law, blameless." Phil. iii, 6. A faithful, scrupulous, zealous observer
   of the law above all his contemporaries; such, then, was Paul. Who
   cannot discover beneath this extraordinary zeal the secret disquietude,
   the dull, oppressive uneasiness of which we have been speaking? In
   heart, Saul of Tarsus was seeking from Judaism that which it had not to
   give. He sought salvation in it; and salvation to him, as to every
   upright man upon whose soul there has never broken the bright light of
   divine forgiveness, could be nothing else than perfect conformity to
   the will of God. The law was precious in his eyes as the revelation of
   that will, and he strove to keep it under the awful sanction of the
   words, "Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are
   written in the book of the law to do them." Gal. iii, 10. Hence his
   restless eagerness, his extraordinary zeal, in the observance of all
   the commandments of Moses.

   He seems to us, in some portions of his Epistles, to be recalling the
   memories of his early life. When he speaks of the powerlessness of
   legalism, he does not pause long on the development of the doctrine;
   his argument takes a dramatic and personal form. We feel that he is
   touching what were the live wounds of his soul before his conversion.
   The seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is full of these
   sorrowful memories. When he depicts to us, with marvelous psychological
   insight, that singular effect of the law in revealing evil to us, and
   giving it an accursed charm by presenting it as the forbidden fruit,
   (Rom. vii, 8, 9,) is he not calling to mind the time when, after having
   recognized the commandment of God—the moral ideal set before his
   conscience—he had been consumed by a vain zeal to realize it, and had
   only gained in the struggle an agonizing conviction of the incurable
   corruption of human nature? Evil attracted him simply because it was a
   violation of the law of God.

   Is it not the same Saul of Tarsus who exclaims, in deep sorrow of
   heart, "When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died: and the
   commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."
   Rom. vii, 9, 10. He reveals himself to us, perpetually renewing a
   fruitless struggle; willing to keep the law, and in the measure of his
   desires finding the measure of his powerlessness; doing not the good
   that he would, and the evil which he would not, that doing. Tossed to
   and fro in this inward conflict, this war of the flesh and the spirit,
   which can have no issue till a new principle has been implanted in the
   heart, he exclaims in despair, "O wretched man that I am, who shall
   deliver me from the body of this death?" [82] Is it possible to doubt
   that the goad of the Lord had already touched his conscience? To him
   the law was a real scourge; no man ever groaned more heavily under the
   rod of the pitiless schoolmaster, whose mission is only fulfilled when
   he has brought his scholar bruised and helpless to the cross. Nor must
   we forget that the unregenerate nature was far from being wholly
   vanquished in Saul of Tarsus. Energetic and impetuous in character, he
   was easily carried away into violence, and, doubtless, deeply as he
   felt his moral misery, he did not cease to pride himself on the high
   position he occupied in his sect. It is not, then, surprising that at
   the time of the first conflict between Pharisaism and the Church at
   Jerusalem, Saul should have approved and encouraged the persecution.
   The internal fever which consumed him—the desire to believe himself
   satisfied—his passionate attachment to every thing Mosaic—all
   contributed to make him an implacable enemy of the courageous
   confessor, who had ruthlessly shaken all his prejudices, and done
   violence, from his point of view, to all the glorious past of Israel.
   Saul of Tarsus was not a persecutor like Caiaphas. He was not defending
   either his person or his interests. He believed himself to be defending
   his God, and the fierce emotion excited by the words of Stephen
   inflamed his anger all the more, because it confirmed the testimony of
   his conscience.

   His contact with Stephen may be regarded as the leading event of his
   life. From the day in which he heard Stephen speak—or rather, from the
   day in which he saw him die, with a calmness so sublime—Paul was beside
   himself. He abandoned the quiet studies of a doctor of the law; he
   could not go on pursuing them till he had silenced that importunate
   voice within, which declared them to be of no avail. He felt that if
   Stephen's words were true, all the scaffolding of his legal virtues and
   Judaistic learning would fall to the ground. He was at heart more
   troubled than he was willing to appear; a secret doubt gave him no
   rest, and he sought to shake it off by persecuting those who had called
   it forth. Hence that redoubled zeal which marks the moral crisis at its
   culminating point. "He breathed out," as the sacred writer tells us,
   "threatening and slaughter," (Acts ix, 1,) and "made havoc of the
   Church, entering into every house, and hailing men and women committed
   them to prison." Acts viii, 3. In every synagogue, he himself says, "I
   punished them oft, compelling them to blaspheme." He thought that by
   thus coercing the new converts to open retraction, he would obtain an
   unanswerable argument against the new religion, and would confirm his
   own convictions. But nothing appeased him, and his violence went on
   growing with his doubts. A moment came when it broke through all
   bounds, and not content with persecuting the Church at Jerusalem, he
   started for Damascus, with letters from the high priest to the elders
   of the synagogue, authorizing him to lay violent hands on the
   Christians in that city. And now God's appointed time was come.

   While we thus regard the conversion of Paul as the issue of a long and
   painful preparatory period of inward crisis, we in no way detract from
   the importance of the remarkable miracle which was its immediate cause.
   If certain dispositions of mind were required by Jesus Christ as
   preparatory even for a miracle affecting the body alone, such as the
   healing of blindness or paralysis, how much more necessary must they be
   for a miracle wholly spiritual. The latter can only be received in its
   full power and meaning by a man whose heart has been prepared by God.
   This important truth comes out with a high degree of evidence from the
   narrative of the conversion of the Apostle.

   As he was on the way, and already near Damascus, suddenly there shined
   round about him a light from heaven, and accompanying the brilliant
   flash a voice was heard with the shock of thunder. The companions of
   the Apostle saw the dazzling brightness, but could discern no distinct
   image; they heard the voice also, but caught no words. [83] Awestruck,
   they fell to the ground. Acts xxvi, 14. They were witnesses only of the
   outward miracle; but within the external was another manifestation of a
   far higher order, which was perceived only by Saul, because he alone
   was prepared to receive it. In the bright light Jesus appeared to him,
   and in the confused noise he heard the voice of Christ making to him
   the most solemn appeal. [84] Paul's subsequent repeated and distinct
   references to the events of this day as establishing his right to the
   apostolate, on the ground, directly and positively stated, that he had
   seen Jesus Christ, set aside absolutely the theory of a mere vision.
   [85] Paul did actually see Jesus, and hear him; but the fact that he
   alone did so on this occasion shows how entirely the perception of a
   miracle may depend on the moral condition. Every miracle has a twofold
   aspect—one external, and belonging to the whole world; the other
   spiritual and divine, discernible only by the inward eye.

   Let us endeavor to give some account of the mysterious scene which
   transpired on the road to Damascus, the consequences of which were so
   momentous to the Apostle and to the Church. Saul of Tarsus is already
   secretly troubled in mind. He has closely observed the first
   Christians, has watched their pure and holy lives, and their still more
   remarkable deaths. The remembrance of Stephen is constantly present
   with him. He has, at the same time, proved the utter impotence of the
   old law; he is exhausted with inward struggles, and yet trembles at the
   thought of repudiating his past life. All these mingled emotions are
   tumultuous within him as he journeys toward Damascus. His conscience is
   ill at ease; his spirit is at once depressed and stirred within him. At
   this crisis Jesus appears to him, and asks, "Saul, Saul, why
   persecutest thou me?" The question wakes a deep echo in his soul; and
   when the voice goes on to say, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest,"
   Saul is vanquished; he falls lightning-struck to the ground; he feels
   that he has long been kicking against the piercing goad. Light bursts
   in upon him; his doubts are dissipated; he sees, he believes. Stephen
   was not deceived; Jesus Christ is the very Lord of glory, and it is he
   whom Saul had been about to persecute at Damascus. The shock of such a
   discovery is overwhelming. Saul is utterly crushed by it. He is himself
   no longer: not his bodily eyes alone, but the eyes of his soul are
   covered with a vail of blackness. He feels that this is the crisis of
   his spiritual life, and he gropes in the thick darkness, discerning
   clearly but this one thing,—that he has been persecuting Christ. Like a
   little child, he suffers himself to be led by the hand into the city,
   where, according to the promise given him, he is to receive new light.

   It would be a grave mistake to suppose that Saul's conversion was
   completed on the road to Damascus. His pride was then broken; his
   doubts were scattered; but he did not at once rise from that tremendous
   blow which had severed his life in two. He then, indeed, received his
   calling as an Apostle, (Acts xxvi, 16-18,) but he had not then any
   conception of its greatness or of its cost. He must needs pass through
   a painful initiatory process. For three days he remains in utter
   darkness, and can neither eat nor drink. He has not told us the history
   of those three days, but it is easy to conceive what they were to him.
   He passed them, doubtless, in deepest humiliation, overwhelmed both by
   the remembrance of his sins, and by a sense of the grace he had
   received. He experienced all the depths of a true repentance; and,
   writhing under the consciousness that he had persecuted his Saviour, he
   reached the full and abiding conviction that he, the persecutor, the
   blasphemer and injurious, was the very chief of sinners. 1 Tim. i, 15.
   When, in a forcible figure, he represents the first stage of conversion
   as burial with Christ, set forth in the act of baptism, he may have
   been calling to mind those three days when, separated from men, without
   a ray of light breaking the awful obscurity, he was, for all the things
   of earth, as one dead. But deliverance had been promised him; God had
   in a vision foretold its approach. At the same time, a disciple named
   Ananias was commanded to go and lay his hands upon him. [86] His eyes
   are opened, he receives the Holy Ghost, and is baptized; and thus that
   work of sovereign grace is completed, of which he was to be at once the
   mightiest witness and the most amazing monument. [87]

   The best preparation of a great servant of God for his work is stern
   solitude. Saul of Tarsus, before entering on his ministry, was sent
   into the wilderness, like Moses and John the Baptist, and like Jesus
   himself. He lived for some years in Arabia, (Gal. i, 17,) in silence
   and seclusion, maturing his soul by prayer, and recovering his moral
   equilibrium after the violent shock he had experienced. From Arabia he
   returned to Damascus, burning with the desire to confess Jesus Christ.
   He preached the Gospel in the very synagogues in which before he had
   sought to stir up bitter adversaries against the Church. His preaching
   thus gave great offense. The intolerant Jewish party, furious at the
   loss of their leader, let loose upon him the popular passions, and he
   only escaped death by precipitate flight. He then went up to Jerusalem.
   For the first time since his conversion he entered that city in which
   he was known only as the most cruel of persecutors, as the most ardent
   adherent of Pharisaic legalism. A severe ordeal was in reserve for him
   in the isolation in which he was for a long time kept by the distrust
   of the Church. Instead of affectionate welcome, he met only with
   suspicious fear. Men would not believe in a conversion so astonishing.
   At length he succeeded in attaching to himself Barnabas, a proselyte of
   the Isle of Cyprus, a man of broader spirit than the native Jews, and
   by him he was brought into the society of the Christians. But he
   received no directions from the Apostles; he only saw Peter, and James
   the brother of the Lord, and his own account of his interview with them
   is altogether incompatible with the notion that he sought from them any
   initiation into evangelical doctrine, (Gal. i, 19;) on the contrary, he
   declares that he did not receive his doctrine from them, but was
   directly taught of God. Gal. i, 1, 12. It was at this period that, in a
   trance in the temple, he received, for the second time, the command to
   go to the Gentiles. Acts xxii, 17-22. But he was pressed in spirit to
   preach the Gospel at Jerusalem. He longed, as at Damascus, to confess
   his crucified Lord and Saviour in the very places where he had
   blasphemed and persecuted him. He addressed himself to those same
   Hellenists for whom Stephen had labored, thus taking up, at the very
   point where it had been left, the work of him for whose death he had
   clamored. Such a marvelous change was well adapted to teach the Church
   the fruitfulness of the martyr's death, and to enhance in its eyes the
   power of that grace which could transform the murderer of Stephen into
   his successor. Saul encountered the same hostility which he had himself
   once helped to provoke against his bold forerunner, and he was forced
   to flee to escape a premature death. He went first to Casarea, and then
   to his native city, where Barnabas came to seek him, and took him to
   Antioch, where was the first Church gathered out of the Gentiles. Here
   Saul found himself in an atmosphere most favorable to his religious
   development; here he preached the Gospel during one year, and
   contributed to that happy movement in advance, by which the Church
   became distinguished in name from Judaism. Saul made another short
   visit to Jerusalem, to carry thither the offerings which the Church at
   Antioch sent in anticipation of the famine predicted by Agabus, and
   which actually took place in the reign of Claudius. On their return
   from this journey, Saul and Barnabas, in consequence of a direct
   revelation of the Holy Spirit, received with the laying on of hands the
   charge of carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles. This is, properly
   speaking, the true commencement of Paul's apostolic work. It is
   important that, before we go further, we should clearly comprehend its
   character.

   We know how frequently Paul insisted upon his privilege as an apostle,
   and with what vehemence he repudiates any inferiority in this respect
   in comparison with his colleagues in the apostolate. "Am I not an
   apostle?" he says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. ix,
   1;) and adds in the second, "I suppose I was not a whit behind the very
   chiefest apostles." [88] On the other hand, we know that this equality
   claimed by him was disputed by the Judaizing party. We may conclude
   from this opposition that his apostolate was not altogether of the same
   nature as that of the first apostles. Let us inquire in what way it was
   similar, and in what superior to theirs.

   We have seen that the apostolate was not a new priesthood, but the
   ideal representation of the Church. The apostle was the Christian of
   the early Church in an official character; he was to raise the
   Christian vocation to its supreme dignity; he was thus, pre-eminently,
   the witness of Jesus Christ, for the special mission of this first
   generation of Christians was to preserve to the world the living memory
   of the Redeemer. St. Paul, in this respect, in no way differs from the
   twelve; like them, he is one of the accredited witnesses of the great
   fact of salvation, only his credentials are of a peculiar kind. The
   essential condition for taking rank among the twelve first apostles
   was, "to have been with the Lord Jesus all the time that he went in and
   out among them, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day
   that he was taken up from them." Acts i, 21, 22. Paul could not adduce
   any external connection with the Saviour in the days of his flesh; he
   had not seen the historic Christ, so to speak; he had seen only the
   ascended and glorified Christ. This sight of him, however, was not a
   mere vision; it was miraculous and positive, and it confers on St. Paul
   an authority in no way inferior to that of the twelve apostles. But it
   is equally true that, in this respect, he more nearly represents the
   numerous generations of Christians who have had no outward relations
   with the incarnate Saviour. Again, he stands apart from that symbolic
   number of the twelve, which points to the ancient tribes of Israel. He
   is the apostle of the Church, as it bursts the confines of Judaism; the
   apostle of mankind, rather than of a nation. Lastly, he did not receive
   his office by transmission: Ananias, who laid his hands on him, was a
   simple believer. His apostolate was conferred on him by a direct
   revelation; it stands in no relation to any positive institution, but
   it carries its own glorious witness in its results. Paul represents
   essentially the reforming portion of the Church; he inaugurates the
   apostolate of the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that from
   which almost all other Christian offices ultimately spring, that which
   breaks, when needful, the framework of imperfect ecclesiastical
   organization, and lives by a life independent, both in its origin and
   continuance, of mere institutions. Let us not forget, however, that St.
   Paul, while he was the representative of the Church in its free
   development, derived a special authority from the direct mission which,
   by revelation, God had conferred upon him. [89]

   One preliminary question remains to be noticed. Paul declares, in his
   Epistle to the Galatians, that the Gospel he preaches comes not from
   man. "I neither received it of man," he says, "neither was I taught it,
   but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. i, 11-13. Are we to
   conclude from these words that Paul received by direct revelation the
   whole divine history of salvation? We think not. God never works
   useless miracles; he does not communicate by supernatural means that
   which can be acquired without such aid. There is no reason why we
   should not believe that St. Paul obtained his acquaintance with the
   substance of the Gospel in his interviews with Ananias and the other
   disciples at Damascus. It is probable, also, that he may have himself
   drawn from fuller sources. Perhaps he may have had in his hands one of
   those written declarations of the things most commonly believed, to
   which Luke alludes, and which were in very early times circulated in
   the Churches. When Paul speaks of his Gospel, he intends by the word
   his own manner of presenting the truth, and especially his profound
   view of the old and new covenant—of the law and justification by faith.
   These great truths he did not receive from any man—they were given him
   by the Holy Ghost. We see, indeed, that the revelation which he
   received in the Temple at Jerusalem bore directly on his mission to the
   Gentiles, (Acts xxii, 2;) it thus presupposed an enlargement of his
   religious views. Paul himself tells us that the mystery revealed to him
   in these last days had reference to the calling of the Gentiles. Eph.
   i, 9, 10. His deep experience of the weakness of Judaism, combined with
   the marvelous and sudden deliverance granted to him, was adapted, under
   the enlightening influence of the Divine Spirit, to bring him to a
   complete apprehension of the relation of the two covenants. Had not the
   great antithesis of the law and grace been realized in his life before
   it was expressed in his writings?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [79] Neander, "Pflanzung," i, 138.

   [80] Strabo, "Geography," xiv, 5.

   [81] Philostratus, "Life of Apollonius of Tyana," i, 7.

   [82] It has often been questioned whether this portion of the Epistle
   to the Romans refers to Paul's moral condition before or after his
   conversion. It seems to us that feelings of discouragement and despair,
   such as are expressed here, are inconceivable in a Christian who knows
   the secret of victory, and who has received from God the principle of a
   new life. Let us not forget, however, that the Christian is never
   perfect, and that he falls back by his inconsistencies, under the
   dominion of the flesh. At such times his old feelings return, and the
   moral contradiction described in this chapter is not without analogy in
   the history of days of decline and fall in his Christian life. But it
   is none the less true that this picture of the impotent wrestlings of
   the soul finds its complete realization only in the unconverted man.

   [83] Acts ix, 7. Compare Acts xxii, 9.

   [84] Baur ("Paulus," pp. 70, 71) lays stress upon the slight
   discrepancies which may be observed between Luke's narrative and the
   accounts which St. Paul himself gives of this transaction, and draws
   the conclusion that Luke's recital is only legendary. But these
   discrepancies are quite unimportant, and vanish before a close
   examination. We have carefully noted the various versions of the event
   in our representation of it. The supposed discrepancies are three in
   number. According to Acts ix, 7, the companions of Paul heard "a
   voice," while in Acts xxii, 9, we are told they "heard not the voice of
   Him" that spake. The two statements seem to us reconcilable by
   supposing, as we have done, that Paul's companions heard inarticulate
   sounds, but not distinct words, ("the voice of him that spake to me.")
   According to Acts ix, 7, the same men saw no man; according to Acts
   xxii, 9, they saw the light. Here again we have a reference only to the
   external aspect of the miracle. It is possible to see a light, and yet
   to see no man. Finally, according to Acts ix, 7, the companions of Saul
   "stood speechless;" according to Acts xxvi, 14, they fell "to the
   earth." There is no necessary contradiction between the two statements.
   We have not even alluded to the naturalistic explanation of the
   miracle, according to which Saul of Tarsus was struck to the ground by
   a thunderstorm. It is beneath discussion.

   [85] See 1 Cor. xv, 8.

   [86] Baur, in his mythological interpretation, regards Paul's recovery
   of sight as a symbol of the illumination produced by a new doctrine.
   ("Paulus," 71.) It is evident that such a system of interpretation does
   violence to the text.

   [87] Lenain de Tillemont asserts that Ananias was a priest, and
   probably a bishop of Damascus. ("Hist. Eccl.," c. i, p. 210.) There is
   nothing whatever in the narrative to lead us to suppose he was even an
   elder of the Church. As to his being a priest or bishop, the idea is
   simply absurd at this period.

   [88] 2 Cor. xi, 5. Comp. Rom. xv, 15, 16; Gal. i, i.

   [89] M. Scherer, in an article on the apostolate in general, and on
   that of St. Paul, ("Revue du Theologie," tom. iii, 6th edit.,) ascribes
   all that the Apostle says as to his authority to a false conception
   entertained by him of the apostolate at large. It seems to us that he
   might easily have avoided so extreme a conclusion by admitting that
   enlargement of the primitive apostolate, which was to lead to the true
   apostolical succession, the inheritance of the Christian Church as a
   whole.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § II. St. Paul's First Journey.

   Until the time when he was sent forth by the Church at Antioch, Saul
   had confined himself to preaching the Gospel to the Jews and
   proselytes. He did not enter on his great mission-field among the
   Gentiles till this first journey, which was, therefore, one of great
   importance to himself and to the Church. It called forth differences of
   opinion which led, ultimately, to the Council at Jerusalem; and the
   result of that council was the first solution of the question which had
   already raised more than one stormy contention among the Christians.
   Saul and Barnabas left Antioch accompanied by John, whose surname was
   Mark. Acts xiii, 5. He was a disciple from Jerusalem, the son of that
   Mary in whose house the Church met to pray for Peter's deliverance from
   prison. Acts xii, 12. He appears to have been a convert of Peter, who
   calls him his son. 1 Peter v, 13. He was subsequently Peter's
   interpreter. [90] From his antecedents we may gather that he was, at
   this time, strongly imbued with the prejudices of a Judaizing
   Christianity. He was not yet on the same level of enlightenment with
   Paul, and a separation between them soon ensued. It is possible that on
   his return he may have contributed, by the reports he brought, to
   occasion the controversy between the Apostles and the narrow Christians
   of Jerusalem. The differences between them cannot have been slight,
   since Paul preferred to separate from Barnabas rather than to accept
   his kinsman again as a colleague. From his Epistles we learn, however,
   that the difference was only transitory, for Mark subsequently appears
   again among the companions of Paul. Philemon, 24; 2 Tim. iv, 11; Col.
   iv, 10. Barnabas being a native of Cyprus, the delegates from Antioch
   first visited that island. They passed through its whole extent. After
   a short stay at Salamis, they went to Paphos, a town rebuilt under
   Augustus. It was in this place, defiled by the infamous rites of the
   worship of Astarte, that Paul won his first conquest over heathenism.
   The highest dignitary of the island, Sergius Paulus, [91] was one of
   those who, disgusted with the polytheism of the West, was seeking in
   the religions of the East, and especially in Judaism, the satisfaction
   of vague aspirations. This state of mind had rendered him susceptible
   to the sorceries of the Jewish magician Elymas, who, like Simon of
   Samaria, turned to account, by base deceptions, the religious cravings
   of the age. Sergius Paulus had not, however, yielded entirely to the
   seductions of the impostor, for when Saul and Barnabas arrived, he at
   once sent for them to come to him. Elymas endeavors to turn away the
   Proconsul from the faith; but, at Paul's severe rebuke, he is struck
   with sudden blindness, and learns, at the sharp cost of experience,
   what is the difference between the sorceries of the magician and a true
   miracle. The Proconsul is converted to Christ, not so much by the
   miracle of which he had been the witness, as by the beauty of the
   doctrine preached to him. [92]

   From the island of Cyprus Paul and Barnabas cross into Asia Minor. They
   only pass through Perga, where Mark leaves them, and go on to Antioch
   in Pisidia, an important town, built, like the other Antioch, by
   Seleucus Nicator. A large Jewish colony is there resident. To this Paul
   first addresses himself. He always, in his missionary journeys, follows
   the order adopted by God himself in the gift of his revelations. He
   held it his duty to preach the Gospel first to those who had received
   in the law and the prophets a direct preparation for it. We know,
   besides, what tender affection he felt-for his people, and what a lofty
   patriotism blended with the breadth of his enlarged Christianity. The
   synagogue at Antioch seems to have been considerably frequented by the
   Gentile population; at least so we may gather from the composition of
   the audience which received the Gospel from the lips of Paul. Acts
   xiii, 44, 45. Judaism was thus confronted with paganism, and the
   Christian Church was to learn, by a significant and decisive fact, in
   what quarter it would find the readiest accessions. For the first time
   the two great religious sections of mankind were summoned on the same
   day to take their position in relation to Christianity. It is a
   critical moment in the history of the apostolic age.

   When Paul has received the invitation to speak the word of exhortation,
   he turns to his countrymen and addresses to them an appeal most earnest
   and touching. The plan of his discourse, of which evidently we have
   only the leading points, is admirably adapted to his purpose. Speaking
   to Jews, he takes his stand on the ground of the old covenant. He first
   shows the historic descent of Christ. Just as the kings succeeded the
   judges, so the Son of David has succeeded the kings, and has
   inaugurated a new kingship. Acts xiii, 23. The last of the prophets,
   John the Baptist, recognized him as the Messiah. Acts xiii, 25. If
   objection be taken to his ignominious death, that death itself Paul
   shows to be part of the prophecies concerning him. Every Sabbath, in
   every synagogue, the prophetic oracles declaring it are read. And
   beyond this, he is risen again, and has been seen of his disciples; and
   this glorious fact, foretold by the prophets, is a pledge of the
   fulfillment of the promises. Acts xiii, 32, 33. So far Paul follows
   substantially the same method as Peter. In addressing Jews he could
   not, indeed, well do otherwise, but his conclusion is startlingly new.
   For the first time he proclaims the impotence of Judaism, and preaches
   salvation by faith alone. "By him," he says, "all that believe are
   justified from all things, from which [they] could not be justified by
   the law of Moses." He concludes by reminding his hearers how awful is
   their responsibility.

   This discourse produced a deep impression; but while the Gentiles were
   filled with joy, there were murmurings of indignation among the Jews.
   These could no longer be restrained when, the next Sabbath, a large
   concourse of Gentiles came up to the synagogue. Paul had given his
   countrymen a grand opportunity of vindicating themselves from the heavy
   charge which had rested on their nation ever since the crucifixion of
   Christ. Far from embracing it, they sanction by their conduct the crime
   of their brethren, and betray once more the obstinate pride of their
   race, at the very moment when the ignorant Gentiles eagerly receive the
   Gospel. Paul and Barnabas are filled with holy indignation; this
   confirmed resistance of the Jews draws from them those words of
   incalculable import, "Lo! we turn to the Gentiles!" A new era opens
   upon the Church, The grateful Gentiles throng around the
   Apostles—conversions are multiplied—but at the same time, persecution,
   stirred up by the Jews, breaks out in fury, and Paul and Barnabas are
   compelled to quit the country, leaving behind them a host of neophytes.
   As they depart they shake off the dust of their feet, and this
   symbolical act is a fresh proof that the severance between the Church
   and the synagogue is complete.

   At Iconium—a neighboring city—similar scenes are enacted. The Gospel is
   preached with acceptance to the Gentiles, but the exasperated Jews
   league themselves with some fanatics, (Acts xiv, 3-6,) and the Apostles
   escape death only by flight. They continue their journey no further in
   Asia Minor; but on returning they pass through Derbe and Lystra, cities
   of Lycaonia, built not far from the mountain chain of Taurus.

   The people of this region were rude and ignorant; they still clung to
   ancient paganism with its absurd fables. They were distinguished by
   their fanaticism, and carried into their religious ideas the same wild
   passion as their neighbors, the people of Phrygia. The worship of
   Jupiter and Mercury was in favor in these provinces. In the familiar
   fable of Philemon and Baucis, these two divinities appear in Phrygia. A
   temple to Jupiter had been built at the gates of Lystra. Such a people
   would be sure to love the marvelous. The miraculous healing of the
   impotent man by Paul excited, therefore, the most lively enthusiasm. On
   all hands the cry was raised, "The gods are come down to us," (Acts
   xiv, 11, 12,) and Paul and Barnabas were hailed under the honored names
   of Mercury and Jupiter. The Apostles, not understanding the language of
   the country, [93] were unconscious of this idolatrous homage till they
   saw the priest of the false gods approaching them with garlands and
   oxen for sacrifice. Indignant and distressed, they ran in among the
   people, rending their clothes according to the Jewish custom, and
   disclaiming the impious worship offered them. "Sirs, why do ye these
   things?" they exclaim; "we also are men of like passions with you."
   Acts xiv, 15. They then press upon their hearers a belief in the true
   God. We observe in these words of Paul that beautiful idea, so often
   brought out by him, that even before the coming of Christ God's care
   had not been concentrated solely on the Jews, but that he had, in the
   benefits of his providence, given to the Gentiles also a revelation
   designed to prepare them for yet higher blessings. Acts xiv, 17, 18. It
   was henceforward not difficult for the Jews of the neighboring cities
   to stir up against the Apostles a multitude already ill-pleased. Paul
   was stoned, and dragged out of the city for dead, and his subsequent
   recovery was nothing less than a miracle. After rapidly passing again
   through the cities where they had preached the Gospel, and presiding at
   the election of elders, Paul and Barnabas set sail from Attalia to
   return to Antioch. Their first missionary journey was ended, and its
   glorious results were summed up in the grand declaration that "God had
   opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." [94] Acts xiv, 27.

   This journey gave striking confirmation to all the revelations which
   Paul had received. He knew now, from the conversion of Sergius Paulus
   and the success of his preaching at Antioch in Pisidia, that deep
   spiritual needs were felt by the Gentiles, and that the heathen world
   was, after its manner, looking for redemption. But, at the same time,
   he had come into sharp contact with popular fanaticism, and had learned
   the cost of opposing it, and he had also proved by experience the
   obstinate resistance of his proud and opinionated countrymen. He had
   gained clearer ideas of the vocation wherewith he was called, with its
   inevitable accompanying perils and pains, and, doubtless, had already a
   sure presage of martyrdom as the final seal of faithfulness to the
   truth. But the glorious victories he had just gained, and the "marks of
   the Lord Jesus," which he already bore in the body wounded for his
   sake, gave him a right to be heard at Jerusalem, as at Antioch. God had
   confirmed his apostleship in a manner not to be mistaken. He was ready
   for the great internal conflict of the Church, after having so mightily
   served the common cause in the conflict with outlying heathenism.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [90] Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," Book III, c. xxxix.

   [91] Sergius Paulus is called anthupatos. This title corresponds to
   proconsul. He served under the governor of the senatorial provinces,
   while the governors of the provinces, receiving their authority
   directly from the emperor, were called proprietors. The island of
   Cyprus was at first, under Augustus, a senatorial province, ("Dio
   Cassius," 53, 2,) but it was afterward given to the senate, (ibid, 54,
   4). Luke's designation of Sergius Paulus is strictly accurate,
   (Wieseler, "Chron. des apostolisch. Zeitalt," p. 225.)

   [92] Acts xiii, 12. The sacred historian from this time uses the name
   Paul instead of Saul, (Acts xiii, 9.) Jerome's ingenious interpretation
   of this is well known: "Apostolus a primo ecclesiæ spolio proconsule
   Sergio victoriæ suæ tropœa retulit, erexitque vexillum ut Paulus ex
   Saulo vocaretur" ("De Viris Illustrit.") The name Paul was borrowed
   (this Father supposes) from Sergius Paulus, in token of the Apostle's
   victory, and as a trophy of this first triumph over paganism. But
   Jerome has not observed that Luke does not say that the name of Saul
   was changed on this occasion; he simply mentions, in a general manner,
   that Saul was also called Paul. We have no right to identify the time
   when this name appears in the narrative with that of its first adoption
   by the Apostle. Other commentators have supposed the name Paul, which
   signifies small, humble, mean, to have been assumed by Saul after his
   conversion, and they bring forward 1 Cor. xv, 9 in support of their
   view; but had this been so, Luke would have spoken of this change of
   name in connection with Saul's conversion. We are disposed rather to
   think that Paul was the Greek form of the name Saul, and that the
   Apostle, after entering upon his mission among the Gentiles, began to
   use it habitually.

   [93] The people used, before Paul and Barnabas, the language of
   Lycaonia. Acts xiv, 11. In the same tongue they call Barnabas Jupiter,
   and Paul Mercury. And yet Paul and' Barnabas have no suspicion of the
   thing at the time. The feelings of the people seem to have been
   explained to them. Acts xiv, 14. It is clear they did not comprehend
   the language. It was rather a Greek patois than a language; it is
   probable that the people knew Hellenic Greek, since Paul's discourse
   seems to have been at once understood.

   [94] Baur ("Paulus," p. 91,) sees in the narrative of Paul's first
   journey nothing more than a skilful imitation of the miracles and
   discourses of St. Peter during the first era of the apostolic age. Thus
   the punishment of Elymas is the reflection of that of Simon Magus, and
   the healing of the cripple at Lystra, of the cure of the paralytic at
   the Beautiful Gate of the Temple. As to Paul's discourses, they are but
   feeble echoes of those of Peter. On this latter point, we content
   ourselves with referring to the analysis we have given of Paul's sermon
   at Antioch in Pisidia. It is very natural that in the first part of the
   discourse, when speaking to the Jews, he should employ a mode of
   argument similar to that which Peter uses in addressing the same
   opponents. As to the miracles of Paul, what difficulty is there in
   supposing that two magicians and two paralytics should have crossed the
   path of the Apostles. An attentive observation of the sacred narrative
   will also discover positive differences between the two series of
   facts. What history could stand before such criticism as this?
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER IV.

    THE TWO CONFERENCES AT JERUSALEM, AND THE DISPUTE AT ANTIOCH.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § I. The Two Conferences.

   THE Christian Church had reached a critical moment. It had already long
   passed out of the peaceful upper chamber at Jerusalem. Important
   questions had arisen which clamored for solution. It must be decided if
   a Judaizing Christianity or a Christianity of broader principles was to
   govern the Churches gathered from among the heathen, A great step in
   the path of emancipation had been taken when circumcision had been
   declared not obligatory in the case of Gentile converts, and they had
   thus been placed on the same level with Jews by birth. This innovation
   had been introduced by Paul, and it implied that he possessed authority
   equal to that of the twelve Apostles. Hence arose two critical
   questions on which minds were deeply stirred and greatly divided. The
   first referred to circumcision. Is it lawful, it was asked, to abrogate
   an institution consecrated by the practice of the Church? The question
   was not now confined, as in the instance of the conversion of
   Cornelius, to an isolated case, or the baptism of a single family; it
   embraced all the thousands of the uncircumcised. The second question
   was touching the apostleship of Paul. Had he the right to use such
   large liberty in his chosen field of action? Might he thus, without
   even consulting with the Church at Jerusalem, introduce such important
   changes? In other words, was he truly an apostle? Of these two
   questions, the one was of general interest, the other personal to Paul.
   The first demanded open deliberation in presence of the whole Church;
   while the second, which was of a more delicate nature, might more fitly
   be discussed in private. Two conferences, therefore, took place
   simultaneously at Jerusalem, the one private, among the Apostles
   themselves, (Gal. ii, 1-11,) the other public, and with the assistance
   of the whole Church. Acts xv, 6.

   But before following in detail these important deliberations, we shall
   do well to place ourselves, as far as possible, in the midst of the
   various conflicting influences which gave occasion to them. It has been
   asserted that the conflict was essentially one between St. Paul and the
   other Apostles, who, we are told, had not in any respect advanced
   beyond the limits of Judaism. This theory is contradicted alike by the
   explicit declarations of St. Paul and by the narrative of Luke. We have
   already sketched the history of the Church at Jerusalem up to this
   period. We have seen that, while still continuing to observe the
   ordinances of the law, the Church regarded itself as forming a separate
   society, the basis of which was faith in Jesus Christ. It had already
   constructed its first simple organization. It had also, in principle,
   recognized the calling of the Gentiles, though without a full
   comprehension of all the consequences of that concession. The majority
   of the Christians of this Church were under the influence of James, the
   Lord's brother. The opposition raised against Paul at Jerusalem cannot
   be ascribed to any of the Apostles. He tells us, in his letter to the
   Galatians, how readily they gave to him the right hand of fellowship.
   Gal. ii, 9. But the primitive Church had not more power than any other
   to preserve itself wholly from the intrusion of sectarian influence.
   The presence of a few hot-headed bigots was enough to sow the seeds of
   discord. It would be impossible to suppose that none such found their
   way into the Church, in the multitude of the early-baptized converts.
   The spirit of Pharisaism is indestructible upon earth; it can assume
   any form, and it is not, therefore, surprising to find it in the very
   Church which was the object of Pharisaic persecution. These men of
   narrow soul, taking advantage of the respect and affection shown by the
   Christians to Judaism, sought to transfuse into the new religion the
   pride and prejudices of the Jews of the decline. Actuated by their
   national exclusiveness and intolerant bigotry, they showed a fanatic
   zeal for the ancient privileges of Israel. Paul does not hesitate to
   call them false brethren. Acts xv, 1; Gal. ii, 4. They heard with
   indignation of the results of his first missionary journey. Some of
   them went privily to Antioch, to spy out the conduct of their great
   adversary, to oppose his views, and to arrest, if it might be so, the
   liberty of practice introduced into the Churches formed under his
   influence. They attacked at once the person and the principles of the
   Apostle, questioning his authority, and obstinately maintaining the
   permanent obligation of circumcision. Acts xv, 1.

   It was impossible for Paul and his followers not to offer an energetic
   resistance to such interference, and it was probably by his advice that
   the Church at Antioch determined to carry the question before the
   Church at Jerusalem. Let us not lose sight of this circumstance, which
   is important, as it proves that the Church at Jerusalem had no share in
   raising the discussion, and that those who were the first agitators had
   no right whatever to speak in its name; that, on the contrary, the
   Christians at Antioch had full confidence in it. St. Paul himself
   distinguishes between the public and the private conference. "I
   communicated," he says, "to them of Jerusalem, [95] but privately to
   them which were of reputation, [96] that Gospel which I preach among
   the Gentiles."

   The moment was full of grave issues for the Apostle; it was a decisive
   crisis, from which his authority must come out either seriously
   compromised or sanctioned before the Church. As he himself says, the
   point to be resolved was, "if by any means he should run, or had run in
   vain," (Gal. ii, 2;) in other words, if his apostleship was to be
   recognized or not. Paul brought forward the question in a manner which
   admitted of no compromise or equivocation. He had with him a young
   converted Greek, named Titus, who had never been circumcised. By
   bringing him to Jerusalem he came to an overt rupture with the
   Judaizing party; he affirmed his right, and used the disputed freedom.

   It is not difficult to form an idea of the points debated in the
   private conferences. The later polemics of St. Paul give us valuable
   hints on this subject, for his adversaries constantly repeated the same
   charges against him. The great objection to his apostleship was drawn
   from the difference existing between him and the primitive Apostles. He
   had not, like them, lived with Jesus Christ; for he was yet a fierce
   persecutor of the Church when the twelve were already governing it with
   authority. Paul met this objection by declaring that "God accepteth no
   man's person," (Gal. ii, 6;) and that, in the choice of his
   instruments, precedent forms no law.

   To those who demanded that he should have received his vocation by
   direct transmission from the hands of the twelve Apostles, he replied
   with equal frankness and boldness, "They added nothing to me." [97] He
   sought, for the steps he took, no authority from those who had gone
   before him. The question, which was at first simply a personal one,
   soon became general. Paul raises it to the height of those great
   principles which animated all his ministry. He appeals, in support of
   his apostleship, to that free, sovereign grace of God, which is not
   limited by precedent, merit, or institution. The same grace which made
   him a Christian made him an apostle. Having done the greater, it was
   assuredly able to do the less. His title is in no way inferior to that
   of the twelve. Without grace, Peter would have been no more an apostle
   than he; with it, their calling was the same. Gal. ii, 8. If the
   question is raised, by what signs shall they recognize this second
   apostolate? the Apostle's reply is, that in these signs there is
   nothing arbitrary. They are to be as clear as the light of day. The
   grace which makes the Christian is demonstrated by its efficacy, by its
   results. And so, likewise, is the grace which makes the apostle. Let
   him be tried by this test. "He that wrought effectually in Peter to the
   apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
   Gentiles." Gal. ii, 8. Paul placed the Churches founded by himself side
   by side with those founded by Peter. The first Apostles could point to
   the work in Jerusalem and in Samaria; he to the mission work at
   Antioch, Paphos, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra, and to all the young and
   flourishing Churches founded by him. What higher demonstration of
   efficacious grace could there be than such signs as these, and who
   would dare to dispute the legitimacy of so fruitful an apostleship?

   This argument of Paul appeared irresistible to the men, who, from the
   extraordinary consideration they enjoyed, may be regarded as the
   arbiters in the dispute. It is impossible, except under the bias of
   very strong preconception, to pretend to gather from the history that
   Peter, James, and John were at the head of the adversaries of Paul,
   when Paul himself so distinctly draws the line between them and the
   "false brethren," who had calumniated him, and so explicitly declares
   their readiness to recognize his apostleship. Gal. ii, 9. The result of
   the conference is clearly indicated by the Epistle to the Galatians.
   The Apostles divide among them the field of Christian missions, or
   rather, they accept the division already made by God. While Peter and
   James continue to devote themselves chiefly to the Jews, Paul and
   Barnabas turn to the Gentiles; but in this division of labor they are
   none the less united, and James and Peter urge Paul to remember the
   poor Churches in Palestine, and to send to them the offerings of the
   young Churches gathered out of paganism. What an admirable method for
   preserving unity in diversity! Love serves as an effectual bond among
   the Churches, and there is no need to lay upon them the yoke of an
   external and legal uniformity. The importance of this conference cannot
   be questioned: it effected the recognition of the full apostleship of
   Paul, it gave, by anticipation, sanction to the ministry of all whom in
   any age God has called to break the bondage of custom and traditional
   routine.

   Besides these private conferences, the Church at Jerusalem had public
   conferences, not on the question of the apostleship of Paul, but on the
   admission of Gentiles into the Church. To these has been given, by
   emphasis, the name of the Council of Jerusalem. No better method could
   have been taken to bring into strong light the contrast between this
   first council and all that have succeeded it. It differs as widely in
   its composition, as in the mode of its deliberations and in its
   results. It is no clerical council pronouncing authoritative decisions
   on points of doctrine. Not only the apostles, but the elders, and the
   whole multitude of the believers, take part in the conference, because
   all have an equal interest in the question at issue. [98] The Council
   of Jerusalem is essentially democratic in character. At a time when the
   level of the religious life was so elevated, there was no fear that the
   gravest interests of the Church would be compromised by a free
   discussion. The Church had not as yet opened its doors to the motley
   throng of merely nominal Christians. If it is asked what right had
   believers, who were neither Apostles nor elders, to sit in the first
   council, the answer is ready, without an appeal to the general
   constitution of the Church at that period. It is sufficient to remember
   that every one of these Christians was prepared to endure martyrdom for
   the faith. Those who are ready to die for the Church have the truest
   qualification for its government. A fair consideration of the part
   taken by the Apostles in the council at Jerusalem, cannot but dispel
   many false conceptions of the apostolic office. If they had really
   constituted a sort of autocratic college, governing the Church, and
   deciding all questions of doctrine and practice by their personal
   infallibility, they would on this occasion have assembled themselves,
   and sent forth to the Church their authoritative decision on the point
   in dispute. They would have inaugurated the method adopted by their
   so-called successors, and determined, without appeal, the mode of
   admission of converted Gentiles. In place of any such act of apostolic
   authority, we find a free discussion, in which the Apostles take part
   only like the other Christians, without enforcing their opinions by any
   appeal to their peculiar prerogatives. On the contrary, the man of most
   influence in the council, he whose advice prevails, is not an apostle:
   he is James, the Lord's brother, one of the elders of the Church at
   Jerusalem. The advocates of a hierarchy maintain that Peter presided
   over the council. They base their opinion on the fact that he was the
   first of the Apostles to give expression to his views. In this, as in
   so many other instances, they mistake, for the privilege of office,
   that forwardness of speech and action which really proceeded from his
   natural impetuosity and ardor. In this case, however, it is not correct
   to assert that Peter opened the conference; the discussion had already
   gone to a considerable length before he spoke. "And when there had been
   much disputing, Peter rose up." Acts xv, 7.

   The breadth of spirit which characterized the deliberations of the
   Council of Jerusalem is worthy of all admiration. We have already shown
   the importance of the point to be decided. It cannot be questioned that
   there were strongly marked differences of opinion in the assembly, even
   leaving out of view the extreme fanatical party. Between Paul and James
   the divergence was great, though both were equally devoted to Jesus
   Christ. Peter, whose mind had already been enlightened by a special
   revelation, occupied an intermediate position. The great body of the
   Christians sided with James. If each one had clung without concession
   to his own peculiar views, a lamentable schism must have resulted from
   these conferences; but the discussion was conducted in a spirit of
   Christian liberty, which obviated all danger. It commenced evidently
   with hot and confused disputation, (Acts xv, 7,) in which, doubtless,
   the accusers of Paul and Barnabas took the chief part. This was the
   first shock of contradictory opinion. It was natural that Peter, who
   had seen the descent of the Spirit upon the converted Gentiles, should
   promptly interpose in the discussion. He simply stated the facts of
   which he had been the witness, and pointed out the conclusions to which
   they naturally led. Since God, he says, put no difference between
   Christians brought out of heathenism and those who had scrupulously
   observed the customs of Judaism, why impose upon them a legal
   ceremonial, a yoke which the Jews themselves had not been able to bear?
   Salvation is not attached to the ceremonial law; it is the gift of the
   grace of God. Acts xv, 7-12. Peter, without entering on the crucial
   question of circumcision, contented himself with laying it down as a
   principle, that the ceremonial law, as a whole, should not be made
   binding on converted Gentiles.

   Paul and Barnabas immediately follow Peter as speakers. They narrate
   the great results of their mission in Asia Minor. They describe, no
   doubt in fervent language, the eagerness of the Gentiles to listen to
   the Gospel, and contrast it with the resistance of the Jews. They point
   to Sergius Paulus converted at Paphos; they dwell on the zeal and love
   of the Churches they have left as bright lights in the midst of the
   darkness and corruption of Asiatic paganism. Acts xv, 12. The assembly
   is thrilled with gladness. None of the Christians well-known for their
   special attachment to Judaism have, however, as yet expressed an
   opinion. It was of the greatest importance that their feeling should be
   known, for they formed the majority. James, the Lord's brother, was the
   representative of those sincere but scrupulous disciples who did not
   feel themselves free to discontinue ceremonial observances. He thus
   fulfilled, on this occasion, the special mission devolving upon him; he
   served to bridge over the gap between the old law and the new, between
   legal bondage and Gospel liberty. We feel, as we listen to him, that he
   has not yet reached the same standpoint as Peter and Paul. The
   prophetic oracles, with reference to the calling of the Gentiles, have
   more weight in his mind than the great principles of the new covenant.
   Acts xv, 15-18. The natural conclusion from the speeches of Peter and
   Paul would have been the complete abrogation of all legal prescription
   in the case of the Gentile converts. James does not go so far: he
   desires that Christians of Jewish extraction should still observe all
   the ordinances of Judaism. They, therefore, need no directions, since
   they have the law of Moses, which is read in every city in the
   synagogues on the Sabbath day. Acts xv, 21. For the Christians
   converted from paganism James proposes a middle course. He does not
   insist on the necessity of circumcision, and on the observance of all
   the ceremonial laws; he only asks that they submit to the conditions
   imposed on proselytes of the gate, in proof of their renunciation of
   heathen practices. [99] "Let us write unto them," says James, "that
   they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from
   things strangled, and from blood." The first of these interdictions is
   explained by the horror the Jews had of idolatry, and every thing
   connected with it. The second was called forth by the deep corruption
   of pagan manners. In the prevalent laxity of morals, debauch was
   scarcely accounted a crime, and the Gentile conscience was in this
   respect especially perverted. The epistles of Paul bear abundant
   evidence that such an injunction was greatly needed. [100] The third
   interdiction, that of things strangled and of blood, had reference to
   the commandments given by God to Noah immediately after the Deluge.
   Gen. ix, 4, 5. A distinction was thus made between the ordinances given
   to Moses and the revelation of God's will to Noah. The latter
   represented the minimum of Jewish requirements, the observance of which
   was demanded of proselytes of the gate. The recommendation of James
   was, therefore, a middle course, designed to avoid any actual rupture
   between the parties.

   It has been said that James made no real concession by this
   proposition-that, in fact, he secured the triumph of the Judaizing
   party. But was it nothing to place Christians converted from paganism,
   and who had only fulfilled the conditions required of proselytes of the
   gate, on the same level with the proselytes of righteousness and the
   Jews by birth? Was it nothing to consent to admit the uncircumcised
   into the Church? Let it be remembered that the whole discussion
   originated in the question of circumcision, and it will be evident that
   the solution proposed by James, while it gave legitimate satisfaction
   to the Christian Jews, completely won the cause for Paul and Barnabas.
   The whole conference agreed in the course proposed, and it was decided
   to send delegates to Antioch, provided with a circular letter
   containing the resolution unanimously taken at Jerusalem. This letter
   is a model of Christian toleration. It is not weighted with anathemas;
   it does not even use the tone of command; it is not the promulgation of
   a decree. After explaining the cause of the disputation, it goes no
   further than to tell the Churches they would do well to conform to the
   resolutions passed at Jerusalem. Acts xv, 29. The letter recognizes the
   inspiration of the Holy Spirit as shared by all who took part in the
   council. [101] It was after prolonged deliberation that the assembly
   reached a result, which is, nevertheless, thus attributed to divine
   influence. The first Christians were not mistaken; they had felt that
   the Spirit was in their midst. The calm and brotherly manner in which
   they had been able to conduct their deliberations testified to his
   presence; and as they had faithfully sought the light, it had been
   evoked from their consultations as pure and bright as if it had
   descended from heaven by a direct revelation. No two things could be
   more unlike than the canons of a council of the fourth century and the
   decisions of the council at Jerusalem. Passed in free conference, they
   appealed only to Christian freedom.

   We shall be much mistaken, however, if we suppose that the question of
   the relation of the two covenants was finally determined by these
   conferences. The obligation to observe the law was still laid on Jewish
   Christians. The concessions made to the Gentile converts would not long
   suffice. There is no ground whatever, therefore, for attributing any
   permanent value to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem. This decree
   was a temporary compromise in the interests of the peace of the Church.
   Acts xv, 28. Paul does not scruple, subsequently, to discuss freely one
   of the points at issue, that touching meats offered to idols. He
   declares, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, that the liberty of
   the Gospel, rightly understood, banishes the scruples of a weak
   conscience, and that the Christian has a right to eat whatever is set
   before him. 1 Cor. x, 27. He admits, however, that every Christian
   should restrain himself, if need be, in the exercise of this freedom,
   rather than offend a weak brother in the faith. The ancient Church
   never recognized any permanent obligation in the decrees of the Council
   of Jerusalem. St. Augustine says: "For a time the Church divided itself
   into two sections, one composed of the circumcision, the other of the
   uncircumcision, which, while both resting on the Corner-stone, were
   distinguished by very marked characteristics; but that time being
   passed, what Christian would hold himself bound to abstain from birds
   strangled? [102]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [95] This refers to the public conference.

   [96] kat' idian. Gal. ii, 2. This is an allusion to the private
   conference.

   [97] Ouden prosanethento. Gal. ii, 6.

   [98] Sun holē tē ekklēsia. Acts xv, 22.

   [99] Thiersch, p. 127.

   [100] A vain attempt has been made to discover in this second
   interdiction a deep meaning, turning on second marriages, or on
   marriages within the degree prohibited in Leviticus, (Lev. xviii.)

   [101] Baumgarten, vol. II, p. 141; Iange, vol. II, p. 184; Neander,
   vol. I, p. 206.

   [102] "Quis jam Christianus observat ut turdas vel minutiores aviculas
   non attingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est." St. August., "Contra
   Faust.," book XXXII, c. xiii.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § II. The Dispute at Antioch.

   Immediately after the council at Jerusalem, Paul returned to Antioch
   with Barnabas. He was quickly followed thither by Peter. At this time
   must have occurred that contention between the two Apostles which is
   narrated with such courageous frankness in the Epistle to the
   Galatians. Gal. ii, 11-15. Peter, whose agreement with Paul had been so
   complete in the conference at Jerusalem, showed at first no scruple in
   associating freely with the converted Gentiles. But on the arrival of
   certain Judaizing Christians from Judæa, he suddenly altered his
   conduct; he separated himself from those whom before he had treated as
   brethren, and drew away several disciples, Barnabas among others, by
   his example. What could account for such a rapid change? How could such
   scruples be revived after the council at Jerusalem, and what was the
   errand at Antioch of these messengers from James, whose part in the
   conference had been so distinctly one of conciliation? For these
   questions we can find no solution, so long as we regard moral and
   religious history as governed only by the inflexible logic of pure
   reason. But looked at in the light of the changeableness of human
   nature, its strange inconsistencies and failings, the events which
   transpired at Antioch are only too easily to be explained. The Council
   of Jerusalem was far from having solved the great problem of the
   primitive Church. It in no way followed, from its decisions, that the
   Jewish and Gentile converts were absolutely on a par, since the former
   were still bound to observe the ordinances of Moses. The barrier was
   lowered, not removed. Thus, no sooner was the decision communicated
   than it received various interpretations. Paul drew from it inferences
   which were undoubtedly by implication contained in it, but which were
   not equally evident to the eyes of all. He deemed that henceforward
   Jewish Christians might freely sit at table with converted Gentiles, a
   practice which would be a formal abrogation of one entire portion of
   the law of Moses. Clearly nothing could be more logical, when once the
   principle had been admitted, that converted Gentiles had the right to
   enter the Church without being circumcised. But James had not foreseen
   this application of the resolution. He had, indeed, provided by
   anticipation against it, by insisting on the obligation of Jews by
   birth to conform to the law of Moses as it was read in all synagogues.
   Acts xv, 21. We can well imagine that he may have heard with alarm of
   the broad interpretation given at Antioch to his decision, and may have
   sent messengers from his Church to put an end to an innovation which
   appeared to him at variance with the policy of conciliation of which he
   had been the wise promoter. It is probable that the delegates from
   James had neither his largeness of heart nor his conciliatory spirit.
   They were stronger partisans than he, and they carried into their
   mission a spirit of intolerance for which they were alone responsible.
   Peter, who did not wish to break with the Church at Jerusalem, allowed
   himself to be drawn into a concession, to be regretted as a failure
   alike in good faith and moral courage. The defenders of the primacy
   refuse to see in this act any thing more than a venial error in
   conduct; one which in no way affects his doctrinal infallibility. They
   forget that Peter, in refusing to eat with converted Gentiles, gave
   sanction to a false doctrine. In fact, a doctrinal question was at
   stake in this question of Christian practice; by his act Peter denied
   the equality of Christians of different origin, and thus espoused a
   positive error. All the subtleties of ingenious argument cannot avert
   the conclusion that Peter's pretended infallibility made shipwreck at
   Antioch. Paul withstood Dim to the face; he showed that his conduct was
   unreasonable and blameworthy, and he thus in open combat successfully
   defended one of the most important consequences of the decree of the
   council. He was preparing for the time when, like a scaffolding reared
   only for a temporary purpose, this transitory order of things would
   give place to the complete abrogation of the ancient law. The sequel of
   this history will show that the contention between Peter and Paul was
   as short as it was sharp. The great Apostle was on the eve of
   undertaking another missionary journey. He wished to visit the Churches
   which he had founded; he did not yet know how, under God, this purpose
   would expand, and he would be called to carry the Gospel into the very
   center of Western heathenism. [103]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [103] See Note E, at the end of the volume.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

BOOK SECOND.

  SECOND PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.—THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH UP TO THE DEATH OF
  ST. PAUL, FROM A. D. 50-65.
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER I.

    MISSIONS OF THE CHURCH DURING THIS PERIOD.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § I. Second Missionary Journey of St. Paul.

   AFTER the conferences at Jerusalem Paul made but a short stay at
   Antioch. He was anxious to visit the Churches which he had founded, and
   to carry the Gospel into new countries. According to his original plan,
   Barnabas was to be his companion; but the latter was not willing to
   separate from Mark, and Paul judged it not reasonable to take with them
   again the young disciple, who had left them in Pamphylia. He did not
   wish to have his own liberal views hindered in their manifestation by a
   timorous comrade, still under the thraldom of Jewish prejudice. A sharp
   contention followed, and Paul and Barnabas parted. The latter repaired
   with Mark to the Island of Cyprus, of which he was a native, while Paul
   returned into Asia Minor, accompanied by Silas. We shall see presently
   how fresh fellow-laborers joined him as he went. The support of such
   men, devoted to his person and his doctrine, was very necessary, while
   he was thus plunging into conflict with the dark depths of paganism.
   The Apostle could scarcely have undertaken, unaided, the tremendous
   task of founding Churches and directing their first steps in a path so
   untrodden. The sense of isolation could not have failed also to weaken
   his hands, for his heart was as full of tenderness as of courage. His
   associates threw themselves completely into his work; they shared its
   responsibility, and acted rather as friends, co-workers, and disciples,
   than subordinates. They yielded to his influence, but they did not wear
   it as a yoke. Silas, or Silvanus, who departed from Antioch with Paul,
   occupied a distinguished position in the Church at Jerusalem. He was
   one of the delegates who carried to Antioch the resolutions of the
   conference at Jerusalem; and from this circumstance it may be inferred
   that he had shown a liberal and conciliatory spirit in the
   deliberations. He served as a sort of link between the Church at
   Antioch and the Church at Jerusalem. Through him the latter was
   therefore directly associated with the work of Paul among the Gentiles.
   Paul's choice of him as a companion was thus both wise and prudent.
   Silas remained faithful to this mission of conciliation, for we
   subsequently find him associated with St. Peter. 1 Peter v, 12.

   Paul manifests in this second journey all the great qualities which
   make him the type of the Christian missionary. Feeble in health, with
   many infirmities, his bodily strength is soon exhausted, but his zeal
   never, and his very weakness gives more touching pathos to his appeals.
   Gal. iv, 14, 15. That voice, broken by suffering, pleads with
   irresistible accents. He is not merely the great orator; he seeks to
   win souls one by one, and where words are too weak, he uses the
   eloquence of tears. Acts xx, 19, 20. He preaches the Gospel with equal
   earnestness to the poor and unlearned, to the proconsul and the king;
   and employs as persuasive arguments in the prison where he teaches the
   slave Onesimus, as on the Athenian Areopagus, or at the judgment-seat
   of Festus. Not content with the extraordinary toils of his ministry, he
   supports himself by the work of his own hands, and, after a hard day of
   missionary labor, he may be seen providing, by tent-making, for his own
   subsistence, that he may be chargeable to none of the Churches. 1 Cor.
   ix, 12. Acts xviii, 3. Freely he will give that which freely he has
   received. This Christian, so free from prejudices, so liberal in
   spirit—this Apostle of a free salvation—nevertheless practices himself
   a severe asceticism, so much the more to be admired because he accounts
   it no merit and makes it no ground of pride. His one desire in keeping
   his body in such subjection is to conquer sin and to glorify his
   Master. Nor may we forget that all these unceasing labors are wrought
   in the midst of persecution and contradiction from without, while
   within is the perpetual pressure of that mysterious trial, that thorn
   in the flesh, designed to chasten and prove him, which, in his powerful
   language, he calls "a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him." [104]

   His tact as a missionary is no less admirable than his zeal. Never was
   worker so wise as he in "redeeming the time"—taking advantage, that is,
   of favorable occasions and circumstances. When he arrives in a city, he
   immediately finds means of access to the largest possible numbers. He
   preaches sometimes in the synagogues; sometimes, as at Philippi, by the
   road side; sometimes, as in frivolous Athens, in the place of public
   resort. He adapts himself to the customs of every country, and far and
   wide proclaims the name of Jesus.

   Paul began his missionary journey by visiting the Churches which he had
   founded in Syria and Cilicia. These were very prosperous, and daily
   increasing in the number of their members. In Lycaonia the Apostle took
   to himself a young disciple, converted during his previous journey, a
   young man full of faith, and endowed by God with many excellent gifts.
   The son of a Jewish mother, he had been taught from his childhood in
   the Scriptures. 2 Tim. iii, 14, 15. His father being a Gentile, he had
   not been circumcised. Paul deemed it well to observe scrupulously the
   decisions of the Council at Jerusalem, so as to give no ground for
   unjust suspicions; he accordingly circumcised Timothy, considering him
   according to Jewish custom, as of Hebrew origin. The young missionary
   also received the laying on of the hands of the assembled elders of his
   Church, (1 Tim. iv, 14,) as Paul had received it at Antioch before
   departing on his first mission. It was the prompting of the Divine
   Spirit, which led the brethren to give to Timothy this truly apostolic
   commission; they had a prophetic foresight of the service he would
   render to the Apostle in his great work. Timothy was, indeed, to Paul
   as a second self; the bond between them was like that of father and
   son. Paul's letters bear witness to the closeness of their relations.
   "I have no man like-minded," he writes to the Philippians. Phil. ii,
   20. "I am mindful of thy tears," (2 Tim. i, 1-4,) he writes to him,
   speaking of their separation. Timothy was not less attached to the
   Churches than to Paul. He combined the energy of youth with the
   maturity of experience. Phil. ii, 22, The gravest and most delicate
   missions were safe in his hands. Paul had full confidence in him, and
   sometimes devolved upon him some of the most difficult duties of his
   office, such as presiding over the organization of new Churches.
   Timothy, like his beloved master, spared not himself in the service of
   Christ; he endured hardness to such a degree as even to injure his
   health. 1 Tim. v, 23. In his youth, his gentleness, his unshrinking
   devotedness, his utter forgetfulness of self, he presents to us one of
   the purest examples of primitive Christianity. He was the Melanchthon
   of the apostolic Luther.

   Paul had also with him, at the beginning of this journey, another
   companion not less faithful: he was a Christian of Greek parentage, as
   we gather from his name—Epaphras, or Epaphroditus. [105] We shall see
   him again at Paul's side in the Roman prison. Col. iv, 12; Philemon 23.
   He appears to have possessed remarkable gifts; for Paul, having passed
   rapidly through Phrygia, left Epaphras behind, and he there founded the
   flourishing Churches of Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea. [106] The
   first of these cities, built on the banks of the Lycus, had been at one
   time a place of much consideration, and although now in its decline, it
   was still important. Laodicea, not far from Colosse, was beginning to
   eclipse it in commercial prosperity. Hierapolis was famous for its cave
   consecrated to Cybele. These three cities belonged to a country notable
   in the ancient world for a religious zeal approaching to frenzy. The
   worship of Cybele, or the Great Mother, had fostered the direst
   abominations of heathenism. It displayed that hideous blending of
   sensuality and cruelty which characterizes all merely natural
   religions. Apuleius has made us acquainted with the abominable rites of
   the Phrygian priests, and with the excesses of the fanatical eunuchs
   called "Galli," whose convulsive dances and deafening music were of
   world-wide repute. It might be easily foreseen that Christianity would
   with difficulty preserve its own purity in so tainted an atmosphere.

   Paul merely passed through Phrygia, but made a longer stay in Galatia.
   There he found a race entirely new to him. The Galatians were not pure
   Asiatics, but a Western race, of Gallic and Celtic origin, which had
   settled in Asia Minor three centuries before Christ, and which,
   although modified by long sojourn in the East, yet retained in many
   respects their original type. The people of these countries were at
   once warlike and democratic; they had for a long time governed
   themselves, and under the imperial dominion had retained their own
   rulers. Paul, ever ready to be all things to all men, threw an unwonted
   vivacity into his preaching in order to make an impression on their
   warm and sensitive natures. In writing to them afterward, he says that
   Christ was set forth before them as vividly as if they themselves had
   seen him crucified. Gal. iii, 1. He thus won his way into their hearts,
   and the bodily sufferings under which he labored completed the conquest
   of their sympathies. He was to them as an angel, even as Christ Jesus,
   and their growing enthusiasm soon knew no bounds. "I bear you record,"
   says the Apostle, in recalling that happy time, "that if it had been
   possible ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and given them to
   me." Gal. iv, 15. But this quick sensibility to impressions might be as
   easily turned in an opposite direction, and he was soon to learn to his
   cost the vacillation of these impetuous natures.

   The mission in Galatia seems a sort of preparation for the transition
   into Europe. The time had come for Paul to set his foot on the classic
   ground of philosophy and ancient art. For entering on a field of labor
   so wide and so new, a direct call from God was necessary. Paul was
   preparing to pursue his mission in Asia, when he was turned aside by a
   very remarkable vision. A man of Macedonia appeared to him, saying,
   "Come over into Macedonia, and help us!" This man was the
   representative of those powerful nations of the West which had
   accomplished such great things, and agitated such great thoughts in the
   domain of politics, and of free speculation, and which now, growing old
   and feeble, writhing in the restlessness of doubt at the foot of their
   world-famous altars of art and beauty, were turning tired eyes toward
   the East, seeking there a deliverance of which they had no longer any
   hope in themselves., This cry, Come over and help us! was it not the
   groaning of Greece, enslaved and fallen? and did not the same
   despairing entreaty come up from all quarters of the Roman empire? Was
   not the strange yearning of the West toward the religions of the East
   itself an unspoken prayer for help? This, then, was a favorable moment
   for carrying the Gospel into Europe. The ruler of the world at this
   period was Claudius, the puppet of mistresses and favorites, who had
   laid upon the whole empire a yoke of deepest humiliation, because the
   slavery imposed was accompanied with no redeeming ray of glory. Neither
   by the arts of peace or war did Claudius achieve any thing honorable to
   himself or to the world. Under this condition of things, the historians
   of the time describe the deepening agitation of men's minds, ever in
   restless quest of the new. The sick man turns upon his bed in feverish
   impatience, and seeks in religions beyond his own new medicines for the
   soul's long malady. [107] But in spite of such favoring dispositions,
   the preaching of the Gospel would have to encounter in Europe a host of
   obstacles. The refined culture of ancient Greece, ever devoted to the
   worship of form, idolatrous of beauty alike in language and in art—the
   terrible corruption of manners—the political and religious despotism of
   Rome, which, with its marvelous organization, had agencies in every
   city, large or small, to discover and to impede any hostile
   movement-such were some of the main obstacles in the path of the
   missionary of Christ. But Paul was not the man to shrink before them;
   and there was power enough in the doctrine which he preached to triumph
   over philosophers and rulers, over human force and human science.

   It was at Troas Paul had the vision which decided him to go over into
   Macedonia. It was also at Troas he associated with himself another
   helper—Luke, the physician, who was to be the inspired chronicler of
   the apostolic age. Luke was, according to Eusebius, [108] a native of
   Antioch, and in all probability a Gentile by birth, and one of the
   Apostle's converts. We shall find him henceforward constantly by Paul's
   side, his companion in prison and up to the eve of martyrdom. None
   caught more thoroughly than he the spirit of the Apostle; none was more
   capable of truly representing his life, and preserving to us the
   features of that noble form. The legend which speaks of him as a
   painter, only errs by clothing a moral quality in a material form. Luke
   shows himself a true and inimitable painter in his representation of
   the Christians of the first century.

   From Troas Paul went by Neapolis to Philippi. This city, built by
   Philip II., on the borders of Macedonia and Thrace, and rendered
   illustrious by the famous battle in which the Roman republic finally
   succumbed under Brutus, had become a flourishing Roman colony, the most
   important in the whole country. [109] It was governed, like all the
   colonies, by magistrates called decemvirs, who exercised all the rights
   of sovereignty in minor causes. They had lictors at their command.
   [110]

   In entering on this new field, the work of Christian missions was
   coming into collision not simply with Jewish fanaticism, or popular
   superstition as in Asia, but with the Roman administration, so
   admirably constructed for the universal suppression of liberty.
   Immediately on arriving at Philippi, Paul repairs to the river side,
   where the Jews were accustomed to assemble every Sabbath. There he
   found only a few women. To these he preached the Gospel with all his
   wonted earnestness and power; and in the house of one of them, Lydia, a
   seller of purple from Thyatira, the first nucleus was formed of that
   Church which was to be the jewel in his apostolic crown. Into this
   humble family there soon came a poor servant-girl, whose condition
   sheds light upon the paganism of that day. The mysterious malady, known
   as possession, was not peculiar to Judea. In this time of momentous
   crisis, the intervention of the powers of the unseen world was more
   than usually direct and sensible. It seems as if the barrier between
   that world and ours was broken down. The evil spirits, whose existence
   is so clearly revealed in the New Testament, act at such epochs in a
   special manner on persons predisposed to their influence by an
   unhealthy moral and physical condition. Natural phenomena, such as
   somnambulism, assume a peculiar character, and are aggravated by the
   addition of actual possession. The girl healed by Paul was the subject
   of this diabolical somnambulism. She had some gifts of divination, like
   somnambulists in all ages. Her fellow-citizens, therefore, regarded her
   as possessed with the spirit of Python, which was one of the names of
   Apollo, the god of oracles. But in addition to this gift of divination,
   there was in her case positive possession, as is clear from the
   language of Paul, who commands the evil spirit to come out of her. As
   the unhappy girl follows Paul and Silas about the streets, crying,
   "These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto you
   the way of salvation," (Acts xvi, 17,) the Apostle, who will not
   receive demoniacal support at any price, heals the girl. This becomes
   the occasion of a violent persecution. The masters of the sick girl,
   enraged at the loss of the gains they made by her divination, stir up
   the populace, and drag Paul and Silas before the decemivirs, charging
   them with introducing into the city a religion not sanctioned by the
   laws. The magistrates yield to the popular clamor: they throw the
   accused into prison, and the jailer, the pliant instrument of the fury
   of the crowd, casts them into a dark dungeon, and makes their feet fast
   in the stocks. A long and painful night begins; but the prisoners feel
   free and happy in their chains. "That gloomy prison," to use the
   language of Tertullian, "was to them what the desert was to the
   prophets—holy retreat; one of those solitary places in which by
   preference Christ reveals his glory to his disciples. While their body
   was in fetters, their soul, sublimely free in spite of grating doors
   and guarded passages, was pressing on the way to God. The flesh feels
   no ill when the spirit is in heaven." [111] They are singing at
   midnight the praises of God. Suddenly an earthquake bursts the prison
   doors. The terrified jailer, fearing the retribution awaiting him if
   his prisoners escape, draws his sword to kill himself. The voice of
   Paul arrests him. "Do thyself no harm," cries the Apostle, "for we are
   all here." The soul of the rough man is moved by the generosity of
   these strange prisoners, who thus return good for evil. The sight of
   Paul and Silas rejoicing in their chains has already touched his
   conscience. Words which, doubtless, he had previously heard from their
   lips receive a new significance; in place of the dread of man, there
   springs up in his heart fear of the judgment of God. There is a
   convulsion in his inner nature corresponding to the convulsion in the
   world without, and he utters that cry of the broken heart whose
   salvation is nigh, "What must I do to be saved?" We know the Apostles'
   reply. The jailer and his family at once receive the sign of the new
   birth, and the Church of the Philippians gains a noble victory in the
   very place in which its founder was to have been consigned to ignominy
   and silence.

   Paul's imprisonment had been the result of a tumult of the people. His
   cause had not been tried. The decemvirs having, like other Roman
   magistrates, but little leaning to religious fanaticism, now send their
   lictors to bring the Apostles out of the prison. But Paul protests
   indignantly against the unlawful treatment they have received. He
   boldly declares himself a Roman citizen—a name which, according to
   Cicero, casts a shield of protection over all who could use it to the
   uttermost parts of the world, and even in the midst of barbarous
   nations. [112] The Porcia lex forbade the beating with rods of a Roman
   citizen. The magistrates, alarmed at such a message, came themselves to
   release the Apostles; and we learn from the example of Paul on this
   occasion to rise above the narrow and petty notions which interdict
   Christians from boldly asserting their rights as citizens. Such views
   tend, in their practical issue, to sap the whole divine basis of
   society.

   Paul left at Philippi a Church which had received the baptism of
   persecution, and which was strengthened in its attachment to his person
   by witnessing his courageous endurance of suffering.

   Of this attachment the Philippian Church soon gave him touching proof,
   by sending generous aid to him at Thessalonica, whither he had gone to
   carry the Gospel. Phil. iv, 16. He had hastily passed through
   Amphipolis and Apollonia in order to reach this important city. It had
   been built by Cassander, who had given to it the name of his wife.
   Standing at the base of a mountain, not far from the sea, it was the
   capital of the second district of the province of Macedonia. It had
   become very flourishing under the Romans, especially by its commerce,
   and the Jews, who had flocked to it in large numbers, had there built a
   synagogue. Paul preached the Gospel to them three Sabbath days, and
   some of them believed, and consorted with the Apostle. But the
   preaching was much more successful among the Greeks. Paul, in his first
   Epistle to the Thessalonians, gives an admirable account of his mission
   among them. He came to them, as we there see, still bearing in body and
   spirit the wounds he had received at Philippi. 1 Thess. ii, 2. The
   fanatical Jews at Thessalonica soon again kindled the flame of
   persecution against him, and it was evident he would find no respite or
   peace. In the midst of many conflicts, therefore, his ministry was
   accomplished; but his courage never faltered, and the power of God was
   magnified in his servant's weakness. 1 Thess. i, 5. Enfeebled by
   suffering, he yet proves irresistible in his arguments with the
   unbelieving Jews. But his own experience of much affliction has given a
   deepened gentleness to his ministry, and full of tenderness for souls
   scarcely escaped out of heathen darkness, he cherishes them "even as a
   nurse her children." 1 Thess. ii, 7. He finds in these Thessalonians
   much readiness to receive the truth, and a childlike enthusiasm for the
   new religion, very beautiful, and productive of the happiest results
   while restrained within bounds by his presence, but dangerously akin to
   fanaticism. Hence the earnest warnings in his Epistles to the new
   converts not to neglect the fulfillment of their daily duties, in undue
   impatience of all the trammels of earthly life.

   These ardent young Christians displayed heroic courage in the conflict
   stirred up by the Jews. 1 Thess. i, 6. Paul was probably led by the
   persecutions which burst so rapidly upon this newly-formed Church to
   dwell much on the glorious issues of Christianity, the triumph of the
   Lord, and his near return. 1 Thess. i, 10.

   It was, indeed, a terrible storm which broke over the Church at
   Thessalonica. Paul's implacable adversaries hired men of low character,
   who by their calumnies of the Apostle set all the city in an uproar.
   Wresting the words he had spoken with reference to the kingdom of
   Christ and his speedy coming to reign, (Acts xvii, 7,) they accused him
   before the Praetor of conspiring against Cæsar. They thus took
   advantage at once of the Roman law, and of the passions of the people—a
   cunning proceeding which proved only too successful.

   When they could not find either Paul or Silas, they assaulted the house
   of an inhabitant of the city, named Jason, who, being probably a
   convert through their preaching, had received them into his house. The
   magistrates committed Jason to prison, and he was only released on
   giving bail. The Apostles were sent away by their friends by night to
   Berea, a town about ten miles distant from Thessalonica. Here they met
   with a better reception from the Jews; they even gained some adherents
   in the upper classes of society. Acts xvii, 12. But the synagogue of
   Thessalonica, irritated by a course of conduct, which in its eyes
   seemed only wicked obstinacy, contrived to stir up the Berean populace
   also against Paul and Silas. Some devoted friends conducted Paul at
   once to Athens, while Silas, Timothy, and the rest of their company,
   remained for awhile behind.

   What Athens was to the ancient world is well known. "From Athens," says
   Cicero, "philosophy and religion, agriculture and laws, have gone forth
   into the whole world." [113] At Athens paganism had attained all the
   perfection of which it was capable. The religion of Greece, which was a
   religion of artists, since its essence was the worship of the
   beautiful, had there found its best interpreters in the great
   sculptors, whose immortal works were the embodiment of ideal beauty. In
   strange paradox, it was also at Athens that paganism had been more
   deeply undermined by philosophy. Socrates and Plato had there taught
   the adoration of a deity more adapted than the Olympian Jupiter to meet
   the demands of conscience. Nor must we forget that not far from Athens
   were celebrated the Eleusinian Mysteries, so closely connected with the
   worship of the divinities, who, according to the belief of the Greeks,
   had the control of death and of the judgment of the soul after the
   earthly life. The secret source of this worship was the vague dread of
   eternity, and the feeling of the insufficiency of a purely esthetic
   religion to lighten the dark abode of death.

   The Athenian people were more concerned than most to appease the gods.
   Philostratus puts these words into the mouth of Apollonius of Tyana:
   "It is wise to speak well of all the gods, especially at Athens." [114]
   This disposition had grown, as Greek polytheism had fallen into deeper
   and deeper decay. In its subjection to the Romans, the brilliant city
   was at once more frivolous and more devout than ever before. The
   rostrum was voiceless; the great poets had been succeeded by frigid
   versifiers. The places of Plato and Aristotle were filled by feeble
   philosophers. While the Epicurean mocked at the gods, the Stoic
   asserted the uselessness of metaphysics. The Athenian people, indolent
   and skeptical, lounged about the public places, seeking to beguile
   their ignoble leisure, but chafed all the while in spirit by a
   restlessness that would not be allayed.

   Such were the conflicting influences at work when the great Apostle
   arrived in Athens. As he passed along the streets of the queenly city,
   where the masterpieces of pagan art met his eye at every step. a sacred
   sadness seized his soul, and he eagerly desired to preach Christ to
   these poor idolators. After having proclaimed the Gospel in the
   synagogue, he sought access to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers.
   The Athenians, whose curiosity was easily excited, brought him to the
   Areopagus, to hear him speak of these new gods. It has been erroneously
   imagined that Paul was arraigned by the Athenians, and that his address
   was a defense of himself rather than a general apology for
   Christianity. He was indeed taken to the spot, where causes were
   customarily tried, but it was only that he might more easily harangue a
   large assembly. Paul had before him the marvelous Acropolis, adorned
   with the miracles of the chisel of Phidias; above him the temple of
   Theseus, the most ancient monument in Athens; and wherever his eye
   turned, it rested on the altars of false gods. It is worth observing,
   that the temples which were nearest to him, in the Areopagus itself,
   were dedicated to those subterranean deities which inspired so much
   terror in the Greeks, and which expressed the protest of outraged
   conscience against the too facile poetry of their state religion. These
   temples were, in fact, according to Pausanias, devoted to the Furies
   and to Pluto. [115] The worship of these terrible and mysterious
   deities implicitly contained an acknowledgment of the unknown God. It
   is of little consequence whether the famous inscription, which the
   Apostle makes his starting-point, really had all the significance which
   he seems to ascribe to it. It was, in any case, a faithful expression
   of one aspect of Greek polytheism, and he had a perfect right so to
   make use of it.

   The testimony of Pausanias and of Philostratus confirms that of St.
   Paul as to this inscription. [116] Of all the interpretations which
   have been given of it, the most plausible appears to us to be that of
   Diogenes Laërtius. He says, that in the time of a plague, when men knew
   not which God to propitiate in order to avert it, Epimenides caused
   black and white sheep to be let loose from the Areopagus, and wherever
   they lay down, to be offered to the respective divinities. "Hence it
   comes," says Diogenes Laërtius, "that altars are still found in Athens
   which do not bear the name of any known god." [117] This fear of
   neglecting angry and unknown gods clearly revealed that in the hearts
   entertaining it there was a deep consciousness of the insufficiency of
   their religion; for if they had truly believed in the gods they knew,
   they would have been assured that when these were appeased there was
   nothing more to dread. But they had a vague conception that another yet
   more powerful deity was angry with them. The worship of the
   subterranean gods took its rise in the same consciousness. "That they
   had reared an altar to an unknown god," says Calvin, "was a sign that
   they knew nothing certainly. It is true they had an infinite multitude
   of gods, but when with these they associated unknown gods, they by that
   act confessed that they knew nothing of the true Deity." [118]

   It is not our purpose here to analyze Paul's address; we shall treat of
   that when he comes to speak of his doctrine. It is impossible not to
   notice, however, the skill with which he finds the point of contact
   between the truth and his hearers. Observing their extraordinary
   devotion, he traces it to its principle—the deep necessity felt by the
   human heart of union with God. He reads on the altars of paganism the
   avowal of its impotence, and he borrows the words of a pagan poet to
   show how grand is man in his origin, and how infinite are his
   aspirations. That living and true God, whom they in their ignorance are
   feeling after, has just revealed himself in an amazing manner by the
   gift of his Son; and faith in the Christ is the one way of escape from
   the terrible judgment which awaits the unpardoned sinner at the
   resurrection day. The Greeks listened to the Apostle so long as he
   confined himself to philosophic generalities, but they could not endure
   the faintest allusion to a judgment to come. The doctrine of
   immortality was contrary alike to the pantheism of the Stoics and to
   the atheism of the Epicureans. It was natural that Greek paganism, on
   its first contact with the severe religion of Jesus Christ, should
   elude its appeals, and seek refuge in graceful frivolity. The Greek
   feels no indignation; he does not persecute like the synagogue; he
   simply returns with a scornful smile to the diversions of the public
   square—a striking illustration of the distance which divides mere
   intellectual curiosity from a serious love of truth. The bow, however,
   so steadily drawn by the Apostle, has not been ineffectual. The true
   worshiper of the "unknown god" perceives that, in truth, this God whom
   Paul declares to them is He; and among the new disciples, one is a
   judge of the Areopagus. In the metropolis of paganism, Paul has spoken
   words mightier and more beautiful than any which had ever fallen from
   the lips of philosophers or poets—words which will be a living power
   when temples and statues are in ruins. Their ruin is indeed already
   imminent. In preaching the true God, Paul has pronounced the death-doom
   of polytheism, and the sentence is without appeal.

   From Athens Paul repaired to Corinth. This city, washed by two seas,
   the Ionian and the Ægean, united, through the activity of its commerce,
   the pomp and luxury of Asia with the civilization of Greece. It had
   been celebrated in all ancient times for the cultivation of the arts
   and sciences. [119] Destroyed by Mummius, 146 years before Christ, it
   had been rebuilt by Julius Cæsar, and had become the capital of Achaia.
   Corinth, at the period when Paul visited it, had recovered all its
   ancient splendor. It surpassed even Athens; for while the city of
   Pericles represented the most exalted side of paganism—pure and noble
   art, great philosophy and great poetry—Corinth represented its material
   and voluptuous side; and such luster is ever the most conspicuous in an
   age of decay. [120] Its beautiful climate, its wealth, the
   extraordinary concourse of foreigners within its walls, all contributed
   to the corruption of manners. Thus, amid the licentious cities of the
   old world, Corinth was distinguished for its immorality. The worship of
   Aphrodite was there observed in all its shamelessness. To live like a
   Corinthian was a proverbial expression for a career of debauchery. What
   a miracle was the foundation of a Church in such a city! Paul's labors
   here commenced less brilliantly than at Athens. He began by working in
   the shade. His first converts were a humble family of Jews, fugitives
   from Rome, in consequence of the decree of banishment issued by
   Claudius against their nation. Priscilla and Aquila were
   fellow-countrymen of the Apostle's, coming, like him, from Pontus; like
   him, they also maintained themselves by making tents of the substantial
   fabrics of their country. A close friendship arose between them; Paul
   lodged under their roof, and supported himself by working with them.
   Not for a day, however, did he lose sight of his missionary work. Every
   Sabbath he went up to the synagogue, and in the interval he preached
   the Gospel to the Gentiles. It is evident, from his first Epistle to
   the Corinthians, that he addressed himself chiefly to the lower orders
   of society. 1 Cor. i, 26. He had not here a brilliant auditory, as on
   the Areopagus; he did not see the first magistrates and philosophers of
   the city thronging around him. He presented the truth to the
   Corinthians in all its naked simplicity; he would not pander to the
   tastes of the degenerate Greeks, enamored of human eloquence and
   outward show. "My speech and my preaching," he subsequently says, "was
   not with enticing words of man's wisdom." 1 Cor. ii, 4. The simple
   setting forth of the Cross was the substance of his teaching.
   Oppressed, as he may well have been, by the sight of the enormities of
   paganism shamelessly enacted before his eyes, he tells us that he
   preached the Gospel in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 1
   Cor. ii, 3. Nevertheless, he gained many adherents, and, among others,
   Stephanas, Crispus, and Gaius. 1 Cor. xvi, 15; 1 Cor. i, 14. The Jews
   at Corinth, with a few exceptions, offered him an obstinate resistance;
   he was even constrained to an open rupture with them. He separated
   himself from them, after addressing them in terrible words of
   denunciation, justly provoked by their blasphemies; and he founded a
   true synagogue in the house of a disciple named Justus, where he
   continued to preach. His discourses produced such an effect that the
   chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue was won to the Gospel. The Apostle
   did not in general baptize the new Christians, leaving this duty to his
   companions, or to the elders of the young Church. He was no
   representative of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, which makes it its first
   concern to initiate men into outward observances; he was concerned
   solely with the moral and religious effect of his teaching, leaving
   aside as subordinate all questions of form.

   After he had thus preached the Gospel during a year and a half, the
   Jews, taking advantage of the arrival of a new proconsul, accused him
   of professing a strange and unauthorized religion. Happily for Paul,
   this proconsul was a man of a tolerant and enlightened disposition; he
   was Gallio, brother of the famous Seneca, by whom he was declared to be
   the mildest of men. [121] He refused, with the disdain of a lettered
   Roman, to interfere in these questions of religion, which appeared to
   him all miserable chicanery. He shared the proud contempt of his
   countrymen for the Jews, and he did not scruple to leave Paul's
   accusers to the violence of the inhabitants of the city, who held them
   and all their race in abomination. Paul soon after quitted Corinth. It
   was from this city that he wrote his two Epistles to the Church of
   Thessalonica. [122] Timotheus and Silas, who rejoined the Apostle at
   Corinth, brought him news from Thessalonica, and their communications
   led him to write, warning that Church against such an undue
   preoccupation with the prophetic aspect of revelation as might lead
   into error.

   Paul, before leaving Corinth, had his head shaved, in fulfillment of a
   vow made some time previously. We cannot but wonder to see the great
   Apostle of the Gentiles submitting to this legal observance. We must
   not forget, however, that this was an age of transition, and that
   Judaism was only gradually vanishing before Christianity, as shadows
   before the sun. Paul, also, while he borrowed an ancient custom from
   the religion of his fathers, did so not as under the yoke of Mosaic
   observances, but in the use of his Christian liberty. While holding as
   a fundamental principle that the whole life is one act of worship, and
   that whatever is done must be done unto the Lord, he yet admitted a
   sort of individual discipline, by which portions of the life,
   characterized by greater austerity than the rest, might be set aside,
   so that the soul, freed from the fetters of the material, might the
   more readily rise into a purer region. 1 Cor. vii, 5. The vow of the
   Nazarite, so common among the Jews, seemed to St. Paul the faithful
   symbol of this exceptional consecration of a portion of his life to
   God. This vow enforced, as we know, abstinence for a time from all
   fermented drinks, and the free growing of the hair uncut. Those who
   were under the vow were regarded as specially consecrated to God. Num.
   vi, 1-8. Commentators have been much perplexed by the fact that Paul
   had his head shorn at Cenchræa, and not in the temple at Jerusalem,
   according to Mosaic prescription. [123] For ourselves, we regard this
   deviation from Jewish ritual as in perfect harmony with his principles;
   he felt no scruple in modifying legal practices, because he held
   himself to be under the law of liberty. The Apostle, who, writing some
   months later to the Corinthians, says, "Know ye not that your body is
   the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor. vi, 19,) and who, consequently,
   no longer believed in the existence of any particular sanctuary, was
   thus raised above all the ordinances which had reference to the temple.
   He felt himself as fully at liberty to have his head shorn at Corinth
   as at Jerusalem, if circumstances rendered it desirable. He thus
   vindicated the voluntary self-discipline of his religious life from the
   appearance of a timid subservience to ritual law. [124]

   From Corinth, Paul went to Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla. After a
   short stay, he left them there, and himself went up, by way of Cesarea,
   to Jerusalem, there to keep the Feast of Pentecost. [125] He did not
   stay either there or at Ephesus, but returned to Antioch, whence he had
   twice gone forth on his great missionary journeys. During his sojourn
   at Jerusalem and at Antioch, Aquila and Priscilla heard at Ephesus of a
   Jewish stranger who was producing a deep impression by his discourses
   in the synagogue. This was Apollos, who was to play so important a part
   in the early Church, and whose influence at Corinth was to rival even
   that of St. Paul. He came from Alexandria, where he had heard the
   learned teachers who endeavored to fuse and harmonize the Mosaic
   religion with the Greek philosophy. From this school he had doubtless
   acquired much aptitude in penetrating into the meaning of sacred
   symbols. He had probably gained some knowledge of the new religion in a
   recent journey in Palestine; but he had, as yet, very elementary
   notions of the Gospel, for he had come in contact only with disciples
   of John the Baptist, and had received only the baptism of John. He
   succeeded, however, even with these imperfect lights, in convincing the
   Jews at Ephesus. He was a man nobly gifted, deeply versed in the sacred
   Scriptures, full of fervor and enthusiasm, [126] courageous, [127] and
   possessed of remarkable oratorical power, which he had been able freely
   to exercise in one of the great centers of Greek civilization. [128]
   From Aquila and Priscilla Apollos learned the way of truth more
   perfectly; and thus furnished, he went at once to Corinth, where his
   eloquence [129] produced an unparalleled effect. We shall soon meet
   with him again, and shall see how party spirit, without Apollos' own
   concurrence, wrested his noble gifts to the disadvantage of Paul, whose
   language had neither the correctness nor the beauty of that of the
   young doctor of Alexandria. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
   is, nevertheless, perfectly in harmony with the Apostle Paul, though
   acting, according to the custom of the apostolic age, with complete
   independence. [130]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [104] There has been much discussion as to the nature of this trial. It
   cannot have reference, as has been supposed, to the sufferings
   inseparable from apostleship, or Paul would not have desired exemption.
   Nor can we see in it merely the lusts of the flesh, especially after
   such a declaration as we have in 1 Cor. vii, 7, 8. It was, probably,
   physical suffering reacting upon the soul through the nervous organism.

   [105] There seems to us no good ground for questioning the identity of
   the Epaphras of the Epistle to the Colossians with the Epaphroditus of
   the Epistle to the Philippians. (ii, 25.) Such a contraction of ancient
   names is most common.

   [106] Nowhere in the Acts do we read of any sojourn of Paul's at
   Colosse, while it is positively said in the Epistle to the Colossians
   that they received the Gospel from Epaphras. (Col. i, 7.)

   [107] Tacitus, "Annals," xi, 15.

   [108] Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," iii, 4.

   [109] This is the most natural sense to attach to the words: hētis
   estin prōtē.

   [110] Stratēgois (Acts xvi, 20) rhabdouchoi.

   [111] "Hoc praestat carcer Christiano quod eremus prophetis. Nihil crus
   sentit in nervo, cum animus in cælo est." (Tertullian, "Ad Martyres,"
   c. ii.)

   [112] "Illa vox et imploratio: Civis Romanus sum! sæpe multis in
   ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit."

   [113] "Unde humanitas, doctrina, religio, fruges, jura, leges, artes in
   omnes terras distributæ putantur." (Cicero, "Pro Flacco," 26, 62.)

   [114] "Philost.," vi, 3.

   [115] "Pausanias," p. 27; Xylander Edit.

   [116] Bōmoi theōn honomazomenōn agnōstōn. Pausanias, i, I;
   Philostratus, vi, 3.

   [117] Diog. Laërtius, "Epimenides," i, 1. St. Jerome says that the
   inscription was thus worded: "Diis Asiæ et Europæ et Africæ, Diis
   ignotis et peregrinis." ("Ad. Tit.," i, 12.) But this opinion has no
   solid ground. Eichhorn maintains that it referred to an ancient god,
   whose name was lost. This opinion might be accepted if we had not the
   explicit testimony of Diogenes Laërtius. (See De Wette's "Comm. on the
   Acts," in which the question is admirably treated.)

   [118] Calvin, "Commentaries," vol. ii, p. 798, Paris edition. 1854.

   [119] Herodotus, ii, 167.

   [120] Lange, work quoted, ii, 233.

   [121] "Nemo mortalium unus tam dulcis est quam hic omnibus." (Seneca,
   "Pref. Natur. Qusest.," I, iv.

   [122] Reuss, "Geschichte der Heilig. Schrift., N. T.," pp. 67, 68. It
   has been erroneously stated that the first epistle was dated from
   Athens; but this is not possible. We see, in fact, (1 Thess. i, 7,)
   that the Churches of Achaia are spoken of. The passage in 1 Thess. ii,
   18, also implies that some time had elapsed between the journey of Paul
   to Thessalonica and the date of the letter. Baur's objections to the
   genuineness of the second epistle are entirely dogmatic and of no
   critical value.

   [123] "And the Nazaiite shall shave the head of his separation at the
   door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (Num. vi, 18.)

   [124] The vow of Paul has been the subject of long and confused
   disputations. It has been maintained, first, that the vow was not made
   by him, but by Aquila; but the adjective keiramenos evidently refers to
   the principal subject of the sentence. Neander, ("Pflanz.," i, 348)
   resting on a passage of Josephus, ("De Bello Judaico," ii, 15,)
   supposes a modification of the vow of the Nazarite among the Jews of
   that period; but the passage of Josephus does not at all signify that
   the head was shaved elsewhere than in the temple. Lange maintains that
   Paul had his head shorn before quitting the Gentile lands, in order
   that his new growth of hair might be undefiled; but such a notion is
   utterly at variance with Paul's principles. Baumgarten (ii, 326, 327)
   makes unfair use of the symbolical manner in which the Apostle speaks
   of the long hair of a woman, (1 Cor. xi, 19,) and sees in St. Paul's
   vow a token of his spirit of humility and submission; but this is a
   forced and over-subtle explanation. As to the idea of Salmasius, that
   what is here meant is some such vow as those spoken of by Juvenal,
   (Satire xii, 815,) which consisted in devoting the hair of the head to
   the Deity, it is utterly baseless.

   [125] Paul goes up by sea to Jerusalem, Now the inexperience of
   navigation would render such a voyage impossible in the spring. The
   feast to be observed could not, therefore, have been the Passover; and
   of the other Jewish festivals, the Pentecost alone would have a
   religious interest for such a man as Paul.

   [126] Dunatos ōn en taes graphais.

   [127] Zeōn tō pneumati.

   [128] Ērxato parrhēsiazesthai.

   [129] Logios. Acts xviii, 24, 28.

   [130] See, with reference to Apollos, Bleek, "Brief an die Hebræer," i,
   422.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § II. Third Missionary Journey of St. Paul.

   Paul began his third missionary journey by visiting the Churches he had
   founded in Phrygia and Galatia. He had the grief of finding that in the
   latter country, where he had been so readily received, his adversaries
   had succeeded in partially nullifying his influence and in giving
   currency to Pharisaic legalism. He went on to Ephesus, sorrowful and
   wounded by signs so unexpected of ingratitude and changeableness. His
   first care was to write a letter to the Churches of Galatia. Every line
   evidences the painful surprise he felt at being thus distrusted by
   those who had at first devoted themselves to him with enthusiastic
   affection.

   Ephesus now became the principal center of his apostolic work. No other
   city could have been chosen so well adapted to be the focus from which
   light might radiate over the whole of Asia. The capital of ancient
   Ionia, it had been the cradle of that famous Ionian civilization,
   which, transplanted into Greece, and correcting the effeminacy of
   Eastern manners by the moral energy of the West, while retaining all
   the flexibility and brilliancy of the Greek genius, had found full and
   harmonious development at Athens. At Ephesus, situated not far from the
   Ægean sea, between Smyrna and Miletus, the oriental type predominated;
   but it had also come under the influence of the West, by the numerous
   communications maintained through its commerce with Greece. It had,
   however, faithfully adhered to the worship of the old gods of Asia; the
   only change it had made was to give the name of Diana to the Astarte or
   Artemis of the Asiatic religions. These, as is well known, consisted
   substantially in a voluptuous adoration of nature; and sensuality was
   an element inseparable from their religious rites. The temple of Diana
   of the Ephesians was of world-wide celebrity. Burned by Erostratus, it
   had been' rebuilt with greater magnificence. Pausanius declares no
   other temple could be compared to it for grandeur; [131] the glory of
   Diana of Ephesus threw into the shade all the other divinities of the
   East and West. At a time of crisis, when all eyes were turned toward
   the East, a divinity which formed a sort of link between the religions
   of the East and West could not fail to acquire extensive popularity. It
   was said that the statue of the goddess had come down from heaven; it
   was carved in wood, rough and ungraceful, like the mummies of Egypt. It
   was customary among the pagans to carry about with them small images of
   the temples in which they worshiped; [132] thus the making of shrines
   had become a very large and profitable trade. The people of Ephesus
   were distinguished for their love of pleasure. "The whole city," says
   Philostratus, "resounded with the music of flutes accompanying the
   dance, and the streets were full of men disguised as women." [133] The
   corruption of manners had here reached its climax.

   Ephesus was, like Corinth, and to a greater degree than Antioch, one of
   the centers of the pagan world, where all sects and all opinions met
   and came into collision. There, as in all the large cities, was a
   Jewish synagogue; in this Paul preached for three months; but here, as
   at Corinth, he came to an open rupture with his countrymen, and
   abandoned the struggle with the invincible obduracy of the Pharisaic
   spirit. He continued to teach the Gospel in the house of one Tyrannus,
   a public teacher of rhetoric, who had a school at Ephesus, and who had
   doubtless been convinced of the folly of his system by the preaching of
   the Apostle. Thus Christianity gained a readier victory in a school of
   pagan literature than in the school of the doctors of the law; and
   those who read Moses and the prophets showed themselves less prepared
   to receive the Gospel than the Greeks, nurtured on Homer, Hesiod, and
   Pindar. So true is it, that external revelation is a dead-letter to
   those whose hearts are hardened.

   Besides the unbelieving Jews of the synagogue, Paul met at Ephesus with
   some proselytes, who were in a singular position. They had been among
   the multitudes who flocked to the baptism of repentance administered by
   John in the river Jordan. They had heard of the miracles of Christ, and
   had recognized him as the true Messiah, without, however, getting
   beyond the point of view of their first master, the Baptist. They had
   left Palestine before the resurrection of the Saviour, and knew nothing
   of the great facts upon which the Church was founded; they were still
   in the position of the disciples before the Feast of Pentecost. The
   germ of faith in their hearts rapidly sprang and grew under the
   teaching of Paul; they soon received the symbol of the new birth, and
   the Holy Spirit marked his presence in their midst by signs and
   wonders.

   There was also a third class of Jews at Ephesus. These were exorcists,
   who worked on the credulity and eager expectations of the people, and
   endeavored, like Simon of Samaria and Elymas of Cyprus, to make gain by
   sorcery. They attempted to cast out devils by the repetition of
   mysterious formulas, which they ascribed to Solomon. [134] They
   succeeded sometimes in producing a certain impression on the diseased
   imaginations of the sufferers from possession, but their cures were not
   lasting; had they been so they would certainly have set them in the
   balance, against the miracles wrought by the Apostles. Some of these
   magicians, seeing the miracles which Paul worked in the name of Christ,
   imagined he had the secret of some more efficacious formula than those
   they were in the habit of using. They endeavored to cast out the demons
   in the same manner, pronouncing, like the Apostle, the sacred name of
   Jesus. Their attempt proved a miserable failure. The unhappy man upon
   whom they made the experiment, in one of those mysterious crises of
   supernatural lucidity common to such cases, cried out, "Jesus I know,
   and Paul I know; but who are ye?" and, leaping on the false exorcists
   with demoniacal strength, wounded and overcame them. The powers of
   darkness are not to be vanquished by words and formularies; they yield
   only to a divine influence, passing from soul to soul.

   This incident in the history of Paul draws a well-marked line of
   distinction between miracle and magic. [135] The event had a very happy
   effect upon the Greek proselytes, who were already attracted by the
   Gospel, but were not yet free from their superstitions. Ephesus was,
   indeed, famous for the practice of the arts of sorcery; Apollonius of
   Tyana there excited the greatest enthusiasm. If Paul wrought more
   miracles in this than on his other missions, it was because no other
   method would have been equally effectual in arresting the attention of
   so corrupt and idolatrous a city. The lesson thus severely taught the
   Jewish exorcists was further of use in preventing any possible
   identification of the power of God manifested in the apostles, with the
   sorceries of the impostors. Many of these, reproved by their own
   conscience, brought their cabalistic books and burned them publicly,
   just as, in later times, a penitent people cast all that reminded them
   of their life of worldliness into the flames kindled at Florence by the
   voice of Savonarola. An important Church was founded at Ephesus, which
   was to be in the close of the apostolic age that which Jerusalem and
   Antioch had been at its commencement.

   For three years Ephesus was the chief abode of the Apostle. During this
   time, however, he made a journey of considerable extent in Europe. His
   first purpose was to visit Corinth, to set at rest the unhappy
   contentions in the Church of that city. He went by sea, and turned
   aside from the direct course to visit Crete. It is easy to suppose that
   the Gospel had been already conveyed to that island by some Christians,
   and that Paul's mission there, like Peter's at Samaria, was to carry on
   a work already commenced, and prosperous. His stay was but short. This
   island, famous for its wealth, and for the number of its towns,
   presented peculiar difficulties to Christianity. The national character
   of its inhabitants had been depicted in severe colors by one of its
   poets, Epimenides, surnamed the prophet, who accused them of being
   altogether given up to sensuality and falsity. Titus i, 12. The very
   name of Cretan had become synonymous with liar. [136] A Church was
   established in the midst even of this depraved people; but Christianity
   had many a conflict to wage with the recurring influences of the old
   corrupt nature.

   From Crete Paul went on to Corinth, where he stayed but a short time.
   During this visit he wrote his First Epistle to Timothy, whom he had
   left at Ephesus, and who in his youth and inexperience found himself at
   issue with serious errors, the first indications of those Gnostic
   heresies which subsequently struck such deep root in this soil, where
   all the religions of the East and West had in turn striven for
   predominance. Paul shortly after this visit returned to Ephesus. He
   there wrote his Epistle to Titus, giving him the benefit of his advice
   in the difficult task of conducting a Church. Shortly after his return,
   he sent Timothy into Macedonia to visit the Churches there, and to make
   collections for the Christians in Judea. [137] He himself, on the
   serious reports received from Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church of
   that city, earnestly reproving it for its schism, for the irregularity
   of conduct which threatened its destruction, and also for the dangerous
   heresies which even went so far as to deny, under pretense of
   spirituality, the resurrection of the body. [138]

   This letter was written under most touching circumstances, for Paul was
   at that very time obliged to hide himself to escape the malice of his
   enemies. He had been suffered for a long time to labor without
   hinderance in the propagation of the Gospel at Ephesus, but persecution
   of singular violence suddenly broke out against him. He encountered a
   kind of opposition which was more than once temporarily to arrest the
   progress of the Church, and to shed rivers of Christian blood. The new
   religion disturbed not only the minds of men, but their secular
   interests. Paganism was not simply a system of general corruption, but
   also of universal traffic. The temples of the false gods had a
   multitude of dependents, who lived by the altars, and who, while they
   shared the popular superstition, also speculated on it for their own
   advantage. The preaching of the true God, no longer confined within the
   precincts of the synagogue, but making itself heard in the public
   squares, and gaining its thousands of adherents from among the idol
   worshipers, could not fail by its success to strike alarm into all
   those who made their gains out of the pagan worship. At Ephesus the
   priests were not the only persons whose interests were compromised by
   the preaching of the Gospel. A considerable traffic was carried on in
   small statues of the goddess and images of her temple. The silversmiths
   made immense sums from this craft; the whole city was interested in the
   worship of Diana, for the votaries of the goddess brought streams of
   wealth within its walls. Nothing, then, was more easy than to excite
   the passions of the populace against the Apostle, and by the fury of
   his enemies we may infer how great had been the success of his mission.
   A silversmith, named Demetrius, was the instigator of the tumult. His
   violent harangue, addressed to his workmen, presents a strange mixture
   of cynicism and superstition. He passes without transition from the
   profits of his trade to the compromised glory of Diana of the
   Ephesians. "Not only this our craft is in danger to be set at naught,
   but also the temple of the great goddess Diana shall be despised, and
   her magnificence be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshipeth."
   Acts xix, 27. Thus the true ground of fanaticism—self-interest—is
   brought to light. The vail of religion, in which it loves to envelope
   itself, is torn away, and the people of Ephesus come forward to make
   common cause for their riches and their faith. Demetrius succeeds in
   stirring up a serious tumult. The people rush to the theater,
   clamorously calling on the name of their favorite goddess. Two of
   Paul's companions are caught. The courageous Apostle never hesitates.
   He will speak to this crowd, bellowing in the circus like a beast
   hungering fqr its prey. It was, doubtless, with the impression of these
   events, fresh in his mind, that he wrote in the letter addressed at
   this time to the Corinthians, "I have fought with beasts at Ephesus."
   This lively image was an admirable representation of the scene in
   question. A roaring lion is the truest symbol of an enraged mob. [139]
   His friends would not suffer him to make himself a sacrifice to the
   crowd. The Asiarchs, who were deputies of the towns of Asia Minor,
   charged with the provision and control of the public games, sent to
   entreat him not to adventure himself in the theater; possibly they were
   favorable to him; they were at any rate responsible for all that
   occurred in the place of public entertainments. The riot came to a
   singular conclusion. The Jews, alarmed at this violent reaction of
   idolatry, by which they might themselves be seriously compromised, put
   forward one of their number named Alexander to speak, doubtless with a
   view to show that their cause was not to be identified with that of
   Paul. [140] But their tactics turned against themselves, for they thus
   provoked an increase of excitement, and for two hours nothing could be
   heard but the cry, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" The Town Clerk
   had the utmost difficulty in quieting the people by flattering their
   passions, and at the same time holding over them a salutary terror of
   the imperial power, which was wont to inflict severe punishments on the
   seditious. Paul, in consequence of these events, immediately quitted
   Ephesus. The treatment he had there received was full of significance.
   It was prophetic of the persecutions awaiting Christians from the whole
   heathen world. It taught the Church how hard it is to change a corrupt
   condition of society. The vociferations in the circus at Ephesus would
   be re-echoed again and again, during the first three centuries, in the
   clamorous cry, "The Christians to the lions!" It was the first deep
   roar of paganism against Christianity.

   From Ephesus Paul went on into Europe. He had shortly before sent Titus
   to Corinth, in order to ascertain the precise effect produced in that
   Church by his letter.2 Cor. xii, 18. After having vainly awaited his
   return at Troas, (2 Cor. ii, 12, 13,) he left to visit the Churches of
   Macedonia. These he found flourishing, full of devotion to himself,
   firm in their faith, purified by persecution, and disposed to
   contribute generously to the collections he was making for the
   Christians in Palestine.2 Cor. viii, 1, 2. This was a great consolation
   to the Apostle in the midst of his own afflictions; for in Macedonia,
   as. in Asia and Achaia, he encountered the bitter and persistent
   hostility of the Jews, and was at times overwhelmed with the greatness
   of his labors and the weariness of incessant conflict.2 Cor. vii, 5. At
   length Titus rejoined him, and told him of the salutary effect produced
   by his first letter on the Christians at Corinth. The irregularities
   which had caused so much scandal were put away: love for the Apostle
   had revived, and better days seemed about to dawn on the Corinthian
   Church. Equilibrium could not, however, be at once restored in a
   community which had been so violently agitated, and the adversaries of
   the Apostle made one more attempt to regain their lost influence by
   redoubling their attacks on Paul, and denying his right to the
   apostolate. He himself, in the second epistle, written under the
   impression of his interview with Titus, gave free expression to the
   feelings which filled his heart. Joy at the repentance of the
   Corinthians, and indignation at the unjust attacks on himself, form the
   burden of this letter. In reply to his assailants, he pleads the facts
   of his apostolic career—a touching and beautiful apology. He depicts in
   glowing colors his labors, his sufferings, his triumphs; and after the
   incomparable picture of his missionary life, gives a glimpse into the
   most sacred secrets of his spiritual history. In no part of his
   writings, full as all are of originality, has Paul left so deep an
   impress of his individuality. The epistle concludes with some practical
   suggestions relative to the collections for the Church at Jerusalem.
   This letter was sent to Corinth by Titus, who was to receive the latest
   offerings of the Corinthian Christians. Paul himself remained some time
   longer in Macedonia, and it was probably at this period he made the
   missionary journey into Illyria, of which he speaks in his Epistle to
   the Romans. Rom. xv, 19: He there stayed, as he had arranged, with
   Titus, in the city of Nicopolis, built by Augustine in memory (Titus
   iii, 12,) of the battle of Actium. Thence he returned to Greece, and
   spent three months in Achaia, chiefly at Corinth, where he wrote his
   Epistle to the Romans, which we shall find equally valuable as an
   historical document, enabling us to trace the commencement of the
   Church at Rome, and as a doctrinal statement of Paul's views upon
   Christianity.

   Paul, in his indefatigable zeal, contemplated a missionary journey into
   the far West. He desired to carry the Gospel into Spain, (Rom. xv, 24;)
   but before doing so, he was anxious to revisit Jerusalem, to hand over
   the liberal collection which had been made, through his efforts, in the
   Churches of Macedonia and Achaia, and to draw yet closer the bonds
   which united him to his colleagues in the apostleship. Rom. xv, 25-27.
   But at the very time he was preparing for these new and distant
   enterprises, he had a presentiment that in going up to Jerusalem he
   would encounter graver perils than any he had yet known. In truth, he
   had come to an open disruption with the Jews in all the great cities of
   Asia and of Greece. He had made no compromise with them, and he knew,
   by painful experience, what he might expect from their fanaticism in
   the very center of their power. Even in the Epistle to the Romans these
   presentiments are apparent; the Apostle urges the Christians at Rome to
   pray that he may "be delivered from them that do not believe in Judæa."
   Rom. xv, 31. His friends shared his apprehensions, which were also
   repeatedly confirmed by prophetic revelations. Thus this journey from
   Europe up to Jerusalem was one succession of most pathetic farewells.
   These began at Troas, whither the Apostle had gone by sea from
   Philippi. On the eve of his departure, he assembled the Christians of
   that city in one of the agapæ so common in the early Church, and which
   were concluded by the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Parting words
   of exhortation and of consolation were prolonged far into the night.
   The miracle wrought upon Eutychus, who being killed by a fall from an
   upper window into the street was restored to life by the embrace of the
   Apostle, was a token of consolation and encouragement for the sorrowful
   Christians at Troas. The most affecting scene took place at Miletus,
   where the Apostle landed after coasting along Asia Minor. He had
   appointed this as the meeting-place for the elders of that Ephesian
   Church in which his ministry had borne such noble fruits. Every thing
   contributed to the solemnity of this interview. Paul had an
   ever-deepening conviction that bonds, afflictions, and perhaps death,
   were awaiting him. He went up to Jerusalem as to an altar of sacrifice.
   He knew that the Church of Ephesus was threatened with dangerous
   heresies. Acts xx, 23-31. Before him were its representatives-men to
   whom he was deeply attached. We can imagine how bitter was the
   separation under such circumstances. The words of the Apostle are full
   of pathos and sublimity. The most tender human feelings find expression
   as freely as the manly courage of the martyr, and the solemn warnings
   of the pastor. Paul calls his hearers to witness the faithfulness with
   which he has preached the Gospel at Ephesus, "keeping back nothing." He
   tells them that they must depend no longer on him, for " he shall see
   their face no more,' and he adjures them to watch over the young Church
   as over a frail plant exposed to the storm. Paul is evidently fully
   conscious of the difficulty of the transition from the apostolic age to
   the period when the Church is to walk without the guidance of its
   founders. His address is full of pathetic warnings, which will be only
   too fully justified by history. "And now," he says, in conclusion, "I
   commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to
   build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them that are
   sanctified, through faith which is in Jesus. I have coveted no man's
   silver or gold. Yea, ye yourselves know that these hands have
   ministered to my necessities, and to them which were with me. I have
   showed you in all things how that so laboring ye ought to support the
   weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, " It is
   more blessed to give than to receive." [141] After thus speaking, Paul
   fell on his knees, and prayed fervently for that Church so threatened
   with peril. Then, amid sore weeping, he took leave of the elders of
   Ephesus. They knew, as they sorrowingly accompanied him to the ship,
   that upon those shores he would never stand again, and their parting
   had all the bitterness of a final farewell. [142]

   No remarkable incidents marked the journey to Jerusalem, except that
   Paul's presentiments as to his coming captivity were confirmed by
   positive predictions. At Tyre he met some disciples who, warned by the
   Spirit of the dangers awaiting him, entreated him not to pursue his
   journey to Jerusalem. At Cæsarea, in the house of Philip the
   Evangelist, a prophet named Agabus yet more clearly foretold his
   captivity by a symbolic action, which reminds us of the manner of the
   ancient prophets. 1 Kings xxii, 11. He was once more besought by his
   friends to change his purpose, but he remained immovable, ready, as he
   said, not only to be bound, but also to die, if need be, for the name
   of the Lord Jesus. Presentiments and prophecies were soon to receive
   signal fulfillment.

   The Apostle arrived at Jerusalem, surrounded by his most cherished
   companions, men belonging to the different Churches founded by him in
   Greece and Asia. They were the representatives and pledges of the
   universal triumph of Christianity. They were the first-fruits of the
   new Israel, to be gathered in from the ends of the earth. Paul was
   received with the greatest affection by the elders of the Church. It
   was quite evident, however, that the great body of Judaizing Christians
   were still prejudiced against him. With a view to conciliation, he
   consented, on the advice of James, not exactly to take upon himself the
   vow of the Nazarite, but to pay the legal charges for four Christians
   of Jewish origin, who were about to fulfill their vow in the Temple, at
   the very time of his arrival in Jerusalem. [143] This step was not a
   politic artifice on the part of Paul, an attempt at diplomatic
   conciliation, as has been objected. He merely acted out the decisions
   of the Council at Jerusalem. Himself a Jew, he observed the Jewish
   custom, according to the decree which had been passed with his
   concurrence a few years previously. He followed also that other law
   which he had laid down for himself, of being to the Jews as a Jew, that
   he might win all by wise conciliation, instead of offending all by a
   sudden revolution. It was this step, however, so pacific in intention,
   which most of all exasperated his enemies; they regarded it as an
   insult alike to the Temple and the law of Moses. When the Apostle
   entered the Temple to signify, according to custom, the days when the
   purification would be accomplished, and the offerings would be
   presented for the Nazarites, some Jews from Asia, who had come up to
   Jerusalem to keep the feast, stirred up the multitude against him, on
   the pretense that he had brought Greeks into the Temple. This
   accusation was-a baseless calumny, for he had not taken with him any of
   his foreign companions. It has been asserted that these Jews were the
   Judaizing Christians who formed the nucleus of the Church at Jerusalem.
   [144] But this is a gratuitous supposition; the Jews from Asia did not
   belong to the Church at Jerusalem, but undoubtedly to one of those
   fanatical synagogues, from which Paul had already met so much
   opposition. Be this as it may, however, the calumny artfully set in
   circulation excited the ever mobile passion of the crowd. The people of
   Jerusalem showed themselves as fanatical as those of Ephesus. Ignorant
   attachment to the Temple of the true God produced the same effects as
   the worship of the impure goddess Diana. In truth, the adherents of the
   Judaism of the decline clung to their worship for the very same reasons
   as the priests and silversmiths of Ephesus; they thought first of all
   of the honor and profit to be derived from it. They made the name of
   Jehovah a covert for their unworthy passions and sordid interests; thus
   proving that idolatry may be found in all religions and under all
   forms. When the tumult was at its height, the tribune who commanded the
   fortress at Antonia, situated not far from the Temple, brought down the
   soldiery to repress the riot, which seemed likely to throw the whole
   city into an uproar.

   More than once already the excitable crowd had risen at the voice of
   the unknown agitators. A recent event gave great probability to the
   fears of the tribunes. Josephus tells us that an Egyptian had come to
   Jerusalem, saying that he was a prophet. He persuaded the multitude to
   follow him on to the Mount of Olives, on the promise that he would make
   the fortifications of the city fall down at his word, and would lead
   back his followers through the breach. Felix dispersed the tumultuous
   assembly by force of arms, but the Egyptian had succeeded in making his
   escape. [145]

   The Tribune Lysias at once took it for granted that the present riot
   was excited by the return of the Egyptian, whom he supposed Paul to be.
   Acts xxi, 38. As he was being led away to prison, the Apostle asked
   leave to speak to the people who were following him with shouts and
   cries. Having received permission to address them from the steps of the
   citadel, he attempted no evasion, but, with heroic courage, related in
   a few graphic words the change wrought in him by his conversion, as
   though to say to this fanatical people, "There was a time when I was a
   persecutor of Christians, as you are, but I have seen my guilt, and I
   charge you with the same."

   At the first mention of his mission to the Gentiles the hoarse cries of
   anger burst forth afresh and drowned his voice, as on another
   occasion—how fresh in the memory of Saul of Tarsus!—the voice of
   Stephen had been drowned; and the Tribune, to save him from the
   violence of the people, commanded that he should be brought into the
   castle.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [131] Megethos tou naou ta para pasin anthrōpois katskeuasmata
   uperēkotos. (Pausanias, p. 141.)

   [132] "Asclepiades philosophus deæ cœlestis argenteum breve figmentum
   quocumque ibat secum solitus efferre." (Ammianus Marcellinus, xxii,
   13.)

   [133] Philostratus, "Vita Apoll.," iv, 2.

   [134] Kai hautē mechri nun par' hēmin hē therapeia pleiston ischuei.
   (Josephus, "Ant.," viii, 2. See Olshausen, "Comment.," i, 400.)

   [135] Justin speaks of devils cast out by the name of Jesus: Kata tou
   onomatos autou pan hoaimonion exarkizo-enon nikatai. ("Dial. cum.
   Tryph.," c. lxxxv. Comp. Origen, "C. Celsum," i, 25.) We have here a
   superstition of the second century, which reminds us of the error of
   the Jewish exorcists.

   [136] Krētizein.

   [137] 1 Cor. xvi, 10, 11. After careful examination we have accepted
   Wieseler's supposition, (pp. 280-329,) shared by M. Reuss, ("Gesch. der
   Heil. Schr. N. T.," pp. 74-76,) as to the date of Paul's voyage to
   Crete, of the First Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus. This theory
   only acquires any degree of certainty when the question of Paul's
   second captivity has been thoroughly examined. This will come before us
   as we proceed. For the present we are content with showing the
   probability of the facts being as we have represented. First, it is
   certain that Paul did not remain continuously at Ephesus during two
   years and a half, for we learn from2 Cor. xiii, 1, that before writing
   his Second Epistle to the Corinthians he had twice visited their city.
   His first visit coincides with the foundation of the Church. His second
   journey can only be placed in the interval between his arrival at
   Ephesus and his departure from that city, for he alludes to it in 1
   Cor. xvi, 7; and his First Epistle to the Corinthians was written from
   Ephesus. It is evident, therefore, that during this time Paul traveled,
   and traveled in Europe. His voyage to Crete is then possible at this
   period; and if, as we shall subsequently show, that voyage cannot be
   assigned to any other period in his life, the possibility becomes a
   certainty. We may add that the Epistle to Titus contains more than one
   indication of the date of its composition. Apollos is mentioned in it
   as one of Paul's companions, who had joined himself to Titus. (Tit.
   iii, 13.) Now Paul had just made his personal acquaintance at Corinth,
   and he is not after this found in his company. Does not the name of
   Tychicus, who is a disciple of Asia Minor, indicate that the Apostle
   had just been laboring in that country? He appears again in company
   with the Apostle at the time of his last journey to Jerusalem. (Acts
   xx, 4.) M. Reuss places the composition of the Epistle to Titus during
   Paul's short sojourn at Corinth, and Wieseler on his return to Ephesus.
   The latter supposition appears to us the more probable, for on M.
   Reuss's hypothesis, the letter to Titus would have been written very
   shortly after Paul's leaving Crete. With reference to the First Epistle
   to Timothy, the Apostle's manner of addressing him gives the impression
   that Timothy is still very young. We shall touch presently, in treating
   of the heresies of the Church of the first century, on the objections
   to the authenticity of the pastoral letters.

   [138] This letter was not the first, as we find in 1 Cor. v, 9 allusion
   to an earlier one. We may observe that these heresies, corresponding
   exactly with those contended against in the pastoral epistles, are
   pointed out by Paul in an epistle, the genuineness of which is never
   called in question. Is there not in this a powerful refutation of the
   system which pretends that the heresies mentioned in the pastoral
   epistles could have had no existence at this period, and which on that
   ground argues their spuriousness? Is there not also in this fact a
   confirmation of our supposition as to the date of the Epistles to
   Timothy and Titus?

   [139] 1 Cor. xv, 32. Some Commentators have been disposed to take this
   expression literally. But Paul, as a Roman citizen, could not be
   sentenced to this ignominious torture. Nor have we the record of any
   further persecution than that mentioned in Acts xix, 29. Is it possible
   to suppose that when, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, (xi,
   23-28,) he is recalling all his sufferings, he should have passed over
   in silence an event so important as fighting with wild beasts? On the
   other hand, if these words of the Apostle are referred to the tumult
   raised by Demetrius, they have a very impressive meaning. Doubtless he
   was not himself in the theater; but did not the fierce yells of the mob
   reach his ears? Was he not involved directly in the combat? Was it not,
   in fact, between him and the people of Ephesus, and was not he the
   cause of the exasperation? There is no argument against placing the
   conclusion of the First Epistle to the Corinthians after the riot, as
   Paul still remains one day in the city. (Acts xx, 1.)

   [140] De Wette, in his "Commentary on the Acts," asserts that these
   Jews who put forward Alexander were Christian converts from Judaism.
   But the expression tōn Ioudaiōn does not permit this interpretation.
   Our hypothesis seems to us the most reasonable.

   [141] This saying of the Lord is not recorded in our Gospels.

   [142] Baur regards this address as a fabrication of the second century.
   He grounds his opinion on the mention of the heretics of the Church at
   Ephesus. We shall reply to this objection when speaking of the heresies
   of the primitive Church. The Apostle's presentiments also seem to Baur
   in contradiction with other declarations, such as Rom. xv, 32. May we
   not suppose, however, fluctuations of feeling in the heart of the
   Apostle? (See "Paulus," p. 177.)

   [143] To pay the charges for the sacrifices intended for the
   fulfillment of the vow of the Nazarite was regarded as an act of great
   piety. (Josephus, "Ant.," xx, 6, I.) We cannot suppose that Paul
   himself on this occasion took the vow of the Nazarite, for the
   fulfillment of that vow required a much greater length of time.
   (Numbers vi, 8, 9.) His purification would be required for the offering
   of any sacrifice in the Temple, no less than for the fulfillment of the
   Nazarite's vow. (1 Samuel xvi, 5.) See Wieseler, "Chronol. des ap.
   Zeit.," pp. 104, 105.

   [144] Baur, "Das Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrh.," p. 65.

   [145] Ho de Aiguptios autos e̓k tē̂s machēs aphanēs egeneto. Josephus,
   "Ant.," xx, 6.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER II.

    MISSIONS AND PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHURCH FROM THE CAPTIVITY OF ST. PAUL TO
    HIS DEATH AND THAT OF ST. PETER.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § I. Various Phases of St. Paul's Captivity.

   AS he crossed the threshold of the citadel Paul entered on a captivity
   which was to terminate only with his life. Let us endeavor to follow
   him through its various phases. The Tribune Lysias was much embarrassed
   by the presence of this prisoner, whose crime was unknown to him. He
   thought his guilt might be most easily ascertained by putting Paul
   under torture in its least cruel form. This was an expeditious method
   recommended by the Roman law, but only to be applied to slaves, or in
   cases of exceptional seriousness. [146]

   Lysias thought he had before him a common agitator, a low ringleader of
   a despised people. He felt no hesitation in inflicting a degrading
   penalty on a man whom he regarded as worse than a slave. Paul, however,
   appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen, and the very name sufficed
   to cover him with a powerful shield. The next day the Tribune brought
   his prisoner before the bar of the Sanhedrim, hoping to discover the
   cause of the hostility of the Jews to him. The Jews were vehemently
   desirous to have the whole matter left in their hands. Religious
   offenses were still within their province, and they might thus have
   avenged themselves on Paul, without all the delays of Roman
   jurisdiction. [147] It was important for Paul that these tactics should
   be frustrated. If the Sanhedrim were unanimous in finding him guilty of
   profaning the Temple, he might be at once given over to his implacable
   enemies. He therefore sought to divide them by setting forth in strong
   language his belief in a resurrection. Such a challenge could not fail
   to kindle strife between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul cannot be
   accused of duplicity, for there were in truth certain views common to
   him and to the Pharisees, and his opposition to their spirit of
   formalism was too well known to permit any misconception of his
   attitude toward them. We do not hesitate, however, to prefer his
   defense in the presence of the clamorous crowd, or before Felix and
   Festus, as being less politic and more noble. The violent words of Paul
   to Ananias, compared to the conduct of the Saviour under similar
   circumstances, make us sensible of the vast distance between the Master
   and the disciple. The Apostle still carried a human heart within his
   bosom, and he had ever to be on his guard against the outbreak of his
   impetuous disposition. [148] The sitting of the Sanhedrim ended in a
   great dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The
   exasperation of the latter against Paul seemed so great that the
   Tribune once more interposed, and to save Paul's life remanded him to
   prison. On learning of a nefarious plot laid by the Jews against the
   captive, Lysias sent him away to Cæsarea.

   The Procurator Felix, to whose tribunal Paul was now brought, was a
   freedman of the Emperor Claudius, brother of Pallas, the favorite of
   Agrippina. He belonged to that class, famous for its baseness and
   immorality, which then governed the world by governing the Cæsars,
   purchasing power by flattery, and using it with tyranny to recover the
   price paid for it. Tacitus has characterized Felix with one stroke of
   his incisive pen, when he says, "At once a debauchee and a tyrant, he
   performed functions little less than royal with the spirit of a slave."
   [149] In order to establish his position in Judæa, he married Drusilla,
   daughter of Herod Agrippa. He made his government odious to the Jews,
   indulging himself, as we further learn from Tacitus, in every sort of
   crime. [150] He had continually to suppress attempts at sedition,
   headed sometimes by robbers called sicarii, sometimes by false
   messiahs. He acted with the greatest severity toward the chiefs of the
   nation, in consequence of riots between the Jews and the Syrians in
   Cæsarea. [151] Such a man was likely to hold Paul and his accusers in
   an even balance, and to treat both with the impartiality of a common
   hatred. It is more than probable that if Paul had not been able to
   appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen he would have been left to
   perish in some obscure dungeon, or would have been put to death as a
   leader of sedition. But it was not possible for even a Felix to treat a
   Roman citizen with this cruel indifference. He was compelled to hear
   his cause. His marked antipathy to the rulers of the Sanhedrim was a
   circumstance favorable to the accused. The charges brought by the Jews
   against Paul were as false as they were bitter. They accused him, by
   the mouth of their advocate Tertullus, with being the chief of a sect
   which they represented as politically dangerous, stirring up sedition
   in Judæa and throughout the world. They knew well that nothing would be
   more sure to irritate the cruel Proconsul than such suspicions as
   these. They mentioned also the profanation of their Temple as a pretext
   for bringing the accused within their own jurisdiction. Paul refuted
   their accusations point by point, by the clear and simple narration of
   his last journey to Jerusalem. Felix was convinced of his innocence,
   but, willing to pacify the Jews, he remanded him to prison. He
   subsequently gave him at intervals several mock hearings, in which he
   sought rather to gratify his own curiosity and that of his wife
   Drusilla, than to do justice to Paul. Reproved in his conscience by
   Paul's solemn reasonings of righteousness and judgment to come, he left
   him for two years in prison, secretly hoping that Paul and his friends
   would in the end offer a large sum for his release.

   The captivity of the Apostle at this time was not rigorous. It was not,
   however, the merely nominal imprisonment known as custodia libera,
   which allowed the prisoner the right of living in the house of a
   consul, a praetor, or a magistrate. This sort of detention was granted
   only to the most illustrious offenders, and Paul was not of this
   number. We know positively that he was committed to the guard of Roman
   soldiers; but there were many degrees in military captivity, and the
   magistrate could at will relax or tighten the bonds. [152] Felix
   commanded that Paul should be treated leniently, and be allowed free
   intercourse with his friends. Acts xxiv, 23. The Apostle thus received
   frequent communications from the Churches. Can we suppose that he was
   himself entirely silent during these two years passed at Cæsarea, so
   near to his beloved Churches in Asia Minor—those Churches for which he
   had expressed such tender anxiety to the Ephesian elders? Had he not
   forewarned them at Miletus of the dangerous inroads that would be made
   by oriental Gnosticism on these Christians, already beset with so many
   snares, and blown about by such various winds of doctrine? Was it not
   high time to put them on their guard against perils so serious? These
   considerations seem to us to justify the supposition that the Epistles
   to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, and the lost Epistle to the
   Laodiceans, were written during this period of captivity at Cæsarea.
   [153] The Epistle to Philemon may also well have been written at this
   date. Paul had met in his imprisonment with a poor fugitive slave
   belonging to a Christian at Colosse. Full of the thought that in Christ
   there is neither bond nor free, he had devoted himself with most
   affectionate solicitude to this unhappy outcast of society, and,
   according to his own beautiful expression, had in his bonds begotten
   him to the faith. He thus gave the strongest demonstration of the
   absolute equality which exists between Christians, and he secured the
   future emancipation of the slave by sending him back as his own son in
   the faith, and consequently as a brother of his master, to the house
   from which he had fled. [154]

   Felix was removed from Cæsarea, and Festus came in his place. The new
   governor, like his predecessor, had to wage warfare with the Jewish
   brigands, who under the name of Sicariii laid waste the country. He had
   also some serious differences with the Temple authorities at Jerusalem.
   [155] Probably the hostility between him and the priest's party broke
   out soon after his entry upon office. It may have even begun to
   manifest itself at the time of his journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxv, 1.
   In that case the tergiversations in the treatment of the Apostle would
   be explained. Festus at first shows himself favorable to the Jews; and
   willing to do them a pleasure, leaves Paul in prison. Then suddenly he
   turns against them, and haughtily refuses to allow the prisoner to be
   brought before the Sanhedrim. The High Priest is therefore compelled to
   go down to Cesarea to sustain the accusation. The Jews, finding it
   hopeless to get Paul brought before their own tribunal, as guilty of
   crimes exclusively concerning their religion, change their tactics, and
   accuse him of stirring up rebellion against the Emperor. This appears
   from the defense of the accused, who strongly asserts his innocence on
   this point. Acts xxv, 8. Wearied of this interminable trial, indignant
   at being made a tool to serve the policy of the Roman procurators in
   their relations with the Jews, Paul takes a decisive step, and appeals
   to the Emperor. This was of course the highest jurisdiction, and there
   was no power in the empire the decisions of which might not be revised
   and reversed by this supreme authority. [156] Henceforward Paul's cause
   was withdrawn from the inferior tribunals. It must be pleaded and
   receive its solution at Rome.

   The judicial ceremony, therefore, which was enacted at Cæsarea a few
   days later, can only be regarded as a sort of amusement given by Festus
   to his illustrious guests—an amusement worthy of a blasé Roman, to whom
   the enthusiasm and faith of St. Paul were but a curious phenomenon. The
   King Agrippa, before whom Paul appeared, was Herod Agrippa, son of the
   nephew of Herod the Great, of the same name. Brought up in the palace
   of the Cæsars, he had attained to his high rank by flattery, and had
   received from the munificence of the Emperor, to whom he had been an
   assiduous courtier, [157] with the title of king, the tetrarchies
   formerly held by Philip and Lysanias. Like all favorites, he used his
   power despotically, making and unmaking the high priests at his
   pleasure. Versed in all intrigue, he lived a life of shameless license,
   in incestuous connection with his sister, the famous Bernice, who was
   subsequently to try the power of her charms on Vespasian and Titus.

   Attention has often been drawn to the sharpness of outline with which
   these various personages are sketched by the sacred historian. On the
   one hand we see the Roman of the decline, essentially a materialist,
   treating religious questions with contemptuous irony, and charging Paul
   with madness when he speaks of the resurrection of the dead, and
   carries his hearers into that invisible world which has no existence
   for the pagan. Acts xxv, 19; xxvi, 24. On the other hand, Agrippa
   perfectly represents the man who knows the truth without loving it, and
   who, while giving to it the assent of his reason, refuses to yield to
   it his heart, and to break the chains of licentiousness. Acts xxvi, 28.
   In contrast to these two types of the ancient world, how nobly does
   Paul stand forth as the representative of the new religion! He gives an
   account, grand in its simplicity, of his past life, of his conversion,
   and his mission to the Gentiles. Acts xxvi, 4-23. His only crime is,
   that he has obeyed the call of God; for this alone have the Jews sought
   to kill him. He has no other apology to offer than his absolute
   devotion to the truth. The history of his ministry is the most eloquent
   commentary on the reply of Peter to the Sanhedrim: "We cannot but speak
   those things which we have seen and heard." Was it possible for him to
   resist commands so direct from God? Festus and Agrippa recognize fully
   the innocence of Paul, but he has appealed to Cæsar, and he must needs
   be sent to Rome.

   The incidents of his voyage are familiar to us all. In the midst of
   perils of the sea, he manifests the same calmness, the same courage,
   the same zeal for souls, the same unvarying forgetfulness of self.
   After the shipwreck, and a sojourn of three months in the island of
   Malta, made use of by the Apostle for the foundation of a Church, he
   lands on those shores of Italy which he was to water with his blood,
   and receives at Puteoli the brotherly welcome of the Christians of the
   country. Forty miles from Rome, in the little town of Appii Forum, Paul
   is met by some Christians from the capital of the world; a still larger
   number are awaiting him at a little inn called the "Three Taverns,"
   [158] thirty miles nearer the metropolis. Thus escorted, he enters the
   city by that Appian way which had witnessed so many triumphal
   processions amid its tombs. Little did any dream that this prisoner,
   conducted by a centurion, and surrounded by a group of poor and mean
   men, was the greatest conqueror who had ever trodden that path, and
   that no victory could be comparable with that he was to win over all
   the combined powers of the pagan world, which found their focus in the
   imperial city. The Centurion who brought Paul to Rome belonged to one
   of the legions of the praetorian guard. [159] He handed over his
   prisoner, according to his duty, to the prætorian prefect under whom he
   served. All the criminals who had appealed to the jurisdiction of Cæsar
   were put in charge of this high dignitary of the court. The prefect, at
   this time, was Burrhus, a man of distinction and moderation, and of
   severe morals, whose happy influence restrained even Nero in his career
   of crime. [160] He treated Paul with indulgence, probably in
   consequence of the favorable letters received from Festus, and also on
   the report of the Centurion, who had become the friend of his prisoner.
   Paul was allowed to remain under the guard of a soldier in a house
   hired by himself, and had free communication with his friends. This
   lenient captivity lasted for two years, during which Paul was not
   inactive. He first of all called the chief of the Jews together for
   solemn conference, thus showing how full was his heart of that charity
   which hopeth all things. Was not his very presence in that prison the
   living proof of their obduracy? and were not the chains which bound him
   riveted by their fierce fanaticism? Here, as every-where else, Paul
   found them the implacable enemies of Jesus Christ, and of his Church.
   The last recorded words of the Apostle addressed to them seem like the
   echo of the anathema pronounced by Christ on the Pharisees shortly
   before his death. Acts xxviii, 25-27. These stern utterances are the
   final judgment of the Apostle upon the Jews as a nation. [161]

   After being thus repulsed by the rulers of the synagogue at Rome, Paul
   turned once more with success to the Gentiles. As in the prison at
   Cæsarea he had preached the Gospel to a poor slave, his companion in
   captivity, so now he endeavored to win to Christ the soldiers who
   guarded him by turns. His bonds were by this means to become famous
   through the whole prætorium. Phil. i, 13. In the same manner, he
   embraced every opportunity afforded him to fulfill his apostolic
   commission among the inhabitants of the great city, and his captivity
   contributed much to the increase of the Christian Church in Rome.

   This state of things lasted till the year 62. Then every thing was
   changed. From Paul's letter to the Philippians we learn, first, that
   the party of Judaizing Christians had commenced their intrigues against
   him; they did not hesitate even "to add affliction to his bonds." Phil.
   i, 15, 16. The greatness of Paul's soul, his absolute disinterestedness
   and sublime charity, were brought out under these circumstances. In
   presence of the colossal paganism which was ever before his eyes in
   Rome, minor differences must be lost sight of, and help must be
   accepted from all who preached Jesus Christ, even if they preached only
   from unworthy motives, and to provoke contention and strife. Phil. i,
   18. The captivity of the Apostle became increasingly strict. We cannot
   but wonder at the all but interminable delays in the hearing of his
   cause at Rome. But he had already waited two years at Cæsarea; and
   Nero, who began to show a disposition to tyranny, was not likely to be
   more eager than his proconsuls to do prompt justice. Nor must we forget
   that his trial could not come on till his accusers had arrived, for
   their charge must be laid before the imperial tribunal. At the time of
   year when the Apostle reached Rome the sea voyage was impracticable.
   Some months, therefore, must elapse before his trial could begin.

   The Jews had no interest in hastening the matter to a conclusion; on
   the contrary, they might wish to allow time for the impression
   favorable to Paul, produced by the reports of Festus, to wear away.
   They awaited some auspicious moment for gaining the ear of the Emperor.
   They doubtless thought such a moment had arrived when Octavia Poppaea
   was raised to the rank of empress, for she openly protected them, and
   Josephus asserts that she was a proselyte. [162] It was easy to obtain
   her intervention in a cause which so closely concerned her protégés.
   The wise Burrhus, prefect to the praetorians, was just dead, and had
   been succeeded by Fennius Rufus and the wicked Tigellinus, the creature
   of Poppæa. [163] Paul was directly in the power of the natural
   protectors of his most deadly enemies. He had little hope of obtaining
   justice from Nero at a time when, according to the expression of
   Tacitus, the young Emperor was inclining to crime. [164] In his letter
   to the Philippians, the Apostle had already expressed forebodings of
   the fatal issue of his trial. He still thinks there is a possibility of
   his being set at large, but the thought of approaching death is ever
   present with him. Phil. i, 19-26. He is ready that his blood should be
   poured forth—a holy libation upon the sacrifice of the faith of the
   Churches. [165] But it is the second letter to Timothy which is
   especially full of the presentiments of immediate death. It is like the
   dying testament of the Apostle. The hour of martyrdom is at hand;
   already he is left alone, forsaken by all who did not share his
   courageous and disinterested faith. The disciples from Asia Minor have
   gone back to their country. 2 Tim. i, 15. Demas has saddened his heart
   by a cowardly defection. 2 Tim. iv, 10. Luke alone is with him. The
   malice of enemies becomes daily more declared. He has been summoned to
   stand before the bar of Cæsar unsustained by any human aid. 2 Tim. iv,
   16. But his word has been mighty, none the less; and, with the help of
   God, he has been enabled to confess Christ before heathen Rome, and
   before the Emperor.

   But though he has thus once been delivered out of the mouth of the
   lion, (2 Tim. iv, 17,) he knows he shall not escape a second time, and
   he gives his last exhortation to his most faithful friend. His heart is
   full, as at Miletus, of anxious care for the Churches. The heresy which
   then he feared has already begun to make havoc among them, (2 Tim, ii,
   17; iii, 13; iv, 3,) and dangers are rife within and without. The
   Apostle points out to those who shall survive him the important work
   which will devolve upon them. He forewarns them of inevitable suffering
   and persecution, and epitomizes his own experience of the Christian
   vocation in all its height of privilege and depth of self-sacrifice in
   the noble words, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him." Was not
   his whole career one "bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord
   Jesus," filling up that which was behind in the afflictions of Christ
   in his flesh, for his body's sake, the Church? Was not the living
   sacrifice already consumed by the fire of a fervent love? With what
   beautiful simplicity does he make the last surrender of himself when he
   says, "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at
   hand;" (2 Tim. iv, 6;) and as he adds, " Henceforth there is laid up
   for me a crown of righteousness," can we not see its brightness already
   circling the aged brow? This prisoner of the Lord Jesus has for his
   crown the many Churches founded by his ministry. Those honorable
   sufferings, which give such irresistible weight to his testimony, are
   like the thorns under which the brow of the Redeemer bled. There is but
   little left for Nero to do to perfect the crown of martyrdom, and to
   set on the apostleship of Paul the last and most sacred seal of blood.
   He has fought a good fight, he has finished his course. "Having given
   himself to God," says Chrysostom, "Paul desired to bring with himself
   the whole world as an offering. To this end he traversed sea and land,
   Greece and the barbarous countries, everywhere plucking up the thorns
   of sin, that he might sow the seed of the Gospel; and every-where
   transforming men into angels. [166] "Qui vocatus a Domino," adds St.
   Jerome in his forcible language, "effusus est super faciem universæ
   terræ." [167]

   We shall presently consider Paul in the light of the first of the great
   teachers of the primitive Church; hitherto we have regarded him only as
   the man of conflict and of action, the missionary and the
   controversialist. If we inquire into the peculiar character of the
   missions undertaken and directed by him, we shall find that they differ
   somewhat from those of the foregoing period. The Divine Spirit works
   not less mightily in Paul than in Peter, but the part of the human
   agent is more distinctly observable. The thousands converted on the day
   of Pentecost and in Solomon's porch were acted upon by a sudden and
   irresistible influence, produced by the first outpouring of the Holy
   Spirit. Conversions in masses like these do not recur in this second
   period of the Church. The proselytes are many, but they are made one by
   one, through the personal efforts of St. Paul. The longer he remains in
   any place, the more important is the Church there formed. Results seem
   proportioned in their magnitude to the amount of direct personal
   effort. When we come to examine his teaching, we shall see how wise he
   was in his adaptation of the means he employed to win souls, and how
   admirably he sought and found the point of contact between those he
   addressed and the Gospel he preached. His ministry is accompanied with
   miracles, but he has less frequent recourse than earlier preachers to
   this method of persuasion. In many places he founded Churches by the
   power of his word alone. In these missions of the Apostle to the
   Gentiles, therefore, the Divine Spirit works more directly upon the
   conscience and less by external manifestations. Man cannot derive any
   glory to himself from this fact, for though God's method of
   intervention assumes a different form, it is none the less to this
   sovereign intervention of grace that the most beautiful fruits of the
   Apostle's labor are to be ascribed. [168]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [146] "Edictum divi Augusti extat: quæstiones neque semper in omni
   causa et persona desiderari debere arbitror, sed cum capitalia et
   atrocia maleficia non aliter explorari et investigari possunt quam per
   servorum quæstiones, efficacissimas eas esse ad requirendam veritatem
   existimo." (Wieseler, work quoted, p. 376.)

   [147] Wieseler, p. 378.

   [148] There has been much dispute among commentators as to how Paul
   could have said of the High Priest, "ouk ēdein." Acts xxiii, 5. It has
   been maintained that Paul spoke ironically, "I know him, but do not
   recognize him." It has also been conjectured that the High Priest being
   illegally in office, Paul designed to give him a rebuke. These
   explanations are too ingenious. It is better to suppose that Paul
   really did not, at the first moment, recognize the High Priest.

   [149] "Per omnem sævitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio
   exercuit." Tacitus, "Hist.," v, 9.

   [150] "Annals," xii, 54.

   [151] Josephus, "Ant.," viii, 7.

   [152] Wieseler, work quoted, pp. 380, 381.

   [153] Most commentators assign to these Epistles a later date, namely,
   the early part of Paul's captivity at Rome. Wieseler does so on the
   ground of the great freedom he enjoyed during that portion of his
   captivity. But the imprisonment at Cæsarea was sufficiently lax to
   allow direct and frequent communications with the Churches. (See Reuss,
   "Geschichte der H. Schr. N. T.," p. 98.)

   [154] It appears to us, in spite of Neander's opinion, infinitely more
   probable that Onesimus should have fled from Colosse to Cæsarea than
   from Colosse to Rome. The fact that Paul was, in his captivity, the
   companion of a slave, proves that his confinement was not so light as
   at first it was at Rome, and we have thus an incidental argument in
   favor of our supposition. Wieseler (p. 455) endeavors to identify the
   Epistle to Philemon with that to the Laodiceans spoken of in Colossians
   iv, 16. He does so on the ground that the Epistle to Philemon is also
   addressed to Archippus, who in the Epistle to the Colossians (iv, 17)
   is mentioned as an inhabitant of Laodicea. But this latter fact does
   not appear clearly from the text. Besides, it is difficult to
   understand how a mere letter of recommendation could be spoken of as an
   epistle addressed to an entire Church.

   [155] Josephus, "Antiquities," xx, 8-10.

   [156] Dio Cassius uses the following words with reference to these
   appeals to the Emperor: Dikaze de, kai autus hidia ta te ephesima kai
   ta anapompima hosa an para te tōn meizonōn archontōn aphiknētai, mēte
   gar autodikos mēt' autotelhēs outō tis parapan estō hōste mē ouk
   ephesimon ap, autou dikēn gignesthai. ("Dio Cassius," ii, 19, 53.)
   Speaking of Augustus, he says, "He judged appeals and causes sent up to
   him even after the decision of the very highest authorities, for there
   was no independent or supreme judge from whom there could be no appeal
   to him."

   [157] Dabōn de tēn dōrean para tou Kaisaros. (Josephus, "Antiquities,"
   xx, 7, 1.)

   [158] Tres Tabernæ.

   [159] We must thus understand the words: speirēs Sebastēs. (Acts xxvii,
   1.) Wieseler mentions that detachments of this prætorian guard were
   often sent on distant missions.

   [160] Tacitus, "Annals," xii, 2.

   [161] See Baumgarten, work quoted, second part, c. ii.

   [162] Theosebēs gas ēn. (Josephus, "Ant.," xx, 8, 11.

   [163] Wieseler, pp. 403, 404.

   [164] Tacitus, "Annals," xiv, 52.

   [165] Phil. ii, 17. For a full description of the Apostle's spiritual
   position at this time, see Neander's "Practical Commentary on the
   Epistle to the Philippians," p. 71.

   [166] Epeidē kalōs heauton kathierōse kai tēn oikoumenēn prosēnenche.
   (Chrysost., "De laudib. Pauli apost.," Homily I.)

   [167] Hieron., vol. iii., p. 1412. See Note F, at the end of this
   volume, on the captivity of Paul.

   [168] See Note G, at the end of the volume.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § II. Mission of the other Apostles during this period. [169]

   While Paul was carrying the Gospel from Asia Minor into Europe, and to
   the very center of Western paganism, the other Apostles were not
   inactive in the field of Christian missions. We possess few certain
   details of their labors. We only get glimpses of them through the
   prismatic lens of legend. It is, however, possible to make out, beneath
   the capricious adornments of fable, some positive facts of their
   history, which present traits of indisputable accuracy. There is no
   evidence that the Apostles, with the exception of Peter and Paul, took
   all the part in the primitive missions which is ascribed to them by the
   Church of the third century. The Episcopal notions of that age have
   colored the history of the first century. Just as to St. Peter was
   attributed the foundation and government of the Church at Antioch,
   which, as we have seen, was formed without his assistance, so it is
   very possible that an attempt should have been made in later times to
   refer to the Apostles the propagation of the faith in countries where
   the weight of the labor really rested on simple evangelists. We must,
   therefore, accept with reserve the testimony of historians, and never
   forget that their conception of the apostolate is not in all points
   identical with that of the primitive Church. They regard the Apostles
   as true metropolitan bishops, and cannot suppose a Church founded
   without their participation.

   After the Council at Jerusalem, the Apostles disperse to meet no more.
   James, the brother of the Lord, continues to exercise paramount
   influence over the Church of that city; the holiness of his life, the
   form of his piety, the largeness of heart with which he fulfills his
   mission of conciliation, all contribute to strengthen it. Far from
   appearing as an adversary of Paul, James welcomes him, on his last
   visit to Jerusalem, with brotherly affection, and advises him to join
   himself to those Christian Jews who were about to fulfill in the Temple
   the vow of the Nazarite. We have no further details of his life from
   this time till his martyrdom; but we possess his epistle, from which we
   shall presently gather his doctrine. In it we shall find faithfully
   reproduced all the traits of his noble character—his piety, at once
   scrupulous and elevated; his stern and practical spirit; and, in the
   oriental coloring of his language, the reflection of the old prophets
   of Israel.

   Jude, the brother of James, and consequently of the Lord, also took an
   active part in the propagation of the Christian faith. It is not
   possible to determine from his epistle what was the principal sphere of
   his work. It may, however, be inferred, from his vehement denunciation
   of false teachers, that he had come in contact with the heretics of the
   Churches of Colosse and Ephesus, and that he resided in the countries
   where the first germs of Gnosticism appeared. [170] History gives no
   exact statement with reference to the other Apostles. The various
   traditions, however, connected with their names, enable us to follow
   the track of the missionaries of the primitive Church. It is of far
   less importance for us to know their names, and to be sure that they
   were really apostles, than to verify their triumphs over the paganism
   of the East and West. Accepted with this precaution, tradition sheds
   light upon the path of apostolic missions.

   Paul, in his rapid journeys through Asia, could not have preached the
   Gospel to all the inhabitants of those wide regions. He had succeeded
   in founding, in a short space of time, important Churches, but these
   were surrounded by unbelieving and superstitious masses. It was,
   therefore, very necessary that the missions of the other Apostles
   should occupy, to some extent, the same ground gone over by him.
   According to the testimony of tradition, Cappadocia, Galatia, and
   Bithynia were evangelized by the Apostle Andrew, Peter's brother. [171]
   He is said to have also penetrated into Scythia, and thence into Thrace
   and Macedonia. [172]

   The Churches of Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, founded by Epaphras
   and St. Paul in Phrygia, shed abroad the pure light of truth in that
   classic land of superstition. But the epistles of the Apostles
   themselves show how severely the triumph of Christianity was there
   contested. The work begun had to be constantly renewed; therefore, the
   Apostle Philip went to settle in that country. He took up his abode at
   Hierapolis with his daughters, one of whom had the gift of prophecy.
   [173] His influence appears to have been great over the whole Church of
   Asia Minor.

   The Christian mission does more than consolidate the work already
   commenced; it has an irresistible power of expansion. Matthew carries
   the divine message into Arabia; his Gospel was subsequently found in
   the language of that country. [174] He is soon followed by Bartholomew
   and Nathanael, who had at first accompanied Philip into Phrygia. [175]
   Matthias devotes himself to Ethiopia; [176] James, the son of Alphaeus,
   to Egypt. Simon Zelotes evangelizes Mauritania and Libya; he is said
   even to have visited Britain, [177] but this rests on the doubtful
   authority of Nicephorus. Mesopotamia is believed to have been traversed
   by Judas Thaddeus, who had his station at Edessa, where the new
   religion met with a very favorable reception. [178] The extreme eastern
   point of the primitive mission seems to have been the western frontier
   of India. Thomas is supposed to have preached the Gospel in the
   district adjoining Parthia. [179] It is certain that very early traces
   of Christianity are found in India. In the time of Constantine, a
   missionary who returned from that country asserted that he had met with
   Christians professing evangelical doctrine in its most ancient form.

   If we endeavor to derive from the tradition of the Church any thing
   more than these very general indications about the Apostles, we enter
   the vague region of fable. We know from Eusebius that Philip died at
   Hierapolis, and that his tomb was there to be seen. [180] The
   apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are prolific in details of their
   sufferings. According to these legendary accounts, Andrew was sentenced
   to crucifixion by the Proconsul of Arabia, who was enraged at the
   conversion of his wife. [181] Matthew is said to have been burned;
   [182] Thomas to have been pierced through with a lance; [183] and
   Bartholomew beheaded. [184] It is impossible to ascertain whether these
   traditions have any historical foundation. Be this as it may, it is
   certain that the first Christian missionaries in these remote countries
   fell in the midst of their enemies, and the obscurity of their death is
   the best guaranty of their heroic fidelity. "These lights of the
   world," eloquently says a distinguished theologian, "have disappeared
   from our sight, but we behold the world illuminated by them. They
   sought not their own glory, but they are known to God; and thousands of
   souls saved by their word owe to them their entrance into heaven."
   [185]

   We have more precise information as to the life of St. Peter after the
   Council at Jerusalem. From that time, however, his part is as
   inconspicuous in actual history as it is brilliant in legend. Paul
   fills the whole scene. Nothing could give stronger proof of Peter's
   growth in humility than the fact of his consenting to take the second
   place, after having, more than any other, contributed to lay the
   foundation of the Church by his courage and energy. It is clear that he
   has come under the strong influence of Paul; of this his epistle is the
   surest evidence. Unless we repudiate all proof, external and internal,
   it is impossible not to admit that the good understanding between these
   two Apostles is no invention of the writer of the Acts. Peter, however,
   according to the agreement voluntarily made at the Council at
   Jerusalem, devoted himself almost exclusively to the preaching of the
   Gospel among his countrymen. He passed by the great Churches founded by
   Paul in Phrygia and Asia Minor, [186] and chose as his center of action
   a city of once unrivaled celebrity—Babylon—where we find him shortly
   before his death. 1 Peter v, 13. According to Josephus, thousands of
   Jews had emigrated to that city. [187] The Jewish colony in Babylonia
   must have been very important, since two strongholds were necessary for
   the safe keeping of the offerings destined for the Temple at Jerusalem,
   and an escort of several thousands guarded the sacred treasure as far
   as Judæa, lest it should fall into the hands of the Parthians. [188] It
   is clear from these details given by the Jewish historian, that the
   synagogues of Babylonia continued in close connection with the
   religious center of their nation. After the destruction of Jerusalem,
   the rabbinical school of that country acquired very great influence.
   The Apostle Peter, therefore, found there a vast field of labor; he had
   an entire people to evangelize. The advocates of his primacy, in their
   eagerness to prove, at any price, that he resided at Rome during the
   greater part of his apostolic career, maintain that when in his Epistle
   he speaks of Babylon, he intends the mystic Babylon of the Apocalypse,
   or pagan Rome. But, in the first place, the Epistle of Peter was
   written before the Apocalypse and the persecution under Nero, that is
   to say, before the time when pagan Rome was to the Church what Babylon
   had been to the Jews of old. Up to this time the Christians had had
   much more to suffer from the Jews than from the Gentiles. It is worthy
   of remark, also, that the style of Peter in his Epistle is not raised
   to the lyric tone of ancient prophecy, and its conclusion is as simple
   as possible. There can, then, be no reason for attaching a far-fetched
   symbolic meaning to a designation perfectly clear in itself. Peter had
   succeeded in founding a Church at Babylon; [189] this Church had become
   a center of light to all the Jewish colony. Silas, one of the
   companions of Paul, joined Peter at Babylon, and the description given
   by him of the critical condition of the Churches in Asia Minor
   doubtless led the Apostle to address to them a letter of consolation.
   [190] Persecution was, in truth, imminent; like a violent tempest, it
   was giving precursive tokens of its approach, and it was well that
   words of earnest exhortation should be multiplied on the eve of so
   terrible a conflict. Peter pleaded with holy eloquence, magnifying,
   like Paul, the greatness and glory of Christian endurance, and himself
   preparing to seal with his blood his witness to the truth. In his
   Epistle we feel that he has reached that full maturity of the Christian
   life which is itself an anticipation of heaven. The power of the grace
   of God is magnified in the greatness of the change wrought in him. This
   hot and hasty man, who could one day draw his sword against Malchus and
   the next deny his Lord, now displays the patience and gentleness of his
   Master; this ignorant and prejudiced Jew has risen to the height of a
   broad and spiritual Christianity. The equilibrium of his nature has
   been restored, his zeal refined, his energy at once brought under
   control, and fortified against the weaknesses of the flesh. To use his
   own image, the pure gold has been tried in the fire, (1 Peter i, 7,)
   and, as we see the transformation in Peter's character, we feel that
   there is no nature so headstrong and rebellious that its alloy cannot
   be purged by the process of the Divine Refiner. [191]

   Did Peter go from Babylon to Rome? This is a much disputed question. It
   is impossible to answer it with certainty, but we incline to a reply in
   the affirmative. It is very necessary to guard against party
   prepossessions. If an historian, wedded to the hierarchical theory, has
   an interest in proving the sojourn of Peter at Rome, an historian
   espousing opposite opinions may erroneously imagine he has an interest
   in showing the contrary. Both are therefore bound to weigh with
   scrupulous impartiality the testimony of Christian antiquity. For
   ourselves, we find it impossible to suppose that Peter was at Rome
   under Claudius and at the commencement of the reign of Nero. Besides
   the reasons we have already pointed out, we lay stress on the
   incontestable fact that the name of Peter does not once occur in the
   epistle written by Paul to the Romans, nor in any of the other letters
   of that Apostle dated from Rome. Admitting the hypothesis of Baronius
   and writers of his school, such an omission would be inexplicable; but,
   on the other hand, we are inclined to believe that Peter did spend the
   last year of his life at Rome. We fully admit the uncertainty and
   contradictoriness of tradition on this point. We do not attach much
   importance to the indirect allusion in the epistle of Clement. [192]
   The passage of Ignatius which refers to the martyrdom of Peter is
   apocryphal. His contest with Simon Magus, described in the "Apocryphal
   Acts," is obviously legendary and absurd. [193] Dyonisius, of Corinth,
   positively affirms Peter's sojourn at Rome; but his testimony is
   invalidated by a palpable error, for, against all historical evidence,
   he attributes to Peter a share in the foundation of the Church at
   Corinth, [194] which, beyond question, was the work of Paul alone.

   The fragment of the preaching of Peter, quoted by Cyprian, belongs to a
   document which, though very ancient, is nevertheless apocryphal. [195]
   Irenæus [196] and Tertullian, [197] who both assert that Peter died at
   Rome, write at a period when many of the fables of the first century
   found ready currency. In spite, however, of all these errors of detail
   and absurd combinations, the unanimity of tradition as to Peter's stay
   at Rome appears to us of weight. It is so much the more worthy of
   credence, because several of the "Fathers"—for example, Tertullian and
   Irenæus—had no interest in establishing the primacy of the Bishop of
   Rome. We find, then, no difficulty in admitting that Peter passed the
   closing days of his life in the capital of the empire, and we see no
   conclusion deducible from this fact in favor of the hierarchy. [198]
   The Church of Rome had been founded many years before, and had long
   been molded by the powerful influence of Paul. Peter went to Rome to
   preach the Gospel, and he soon paid with his life the penalty of his
   faithfulness to Christ. He was never Bishop of Rome, and was not called
   to confer any episcopal dignity, for the simple reason that the old
   democratic organization of the Church was at that time, as we shall
   show, in full vigor. The influence of Peter at Rome was further
   diminished by his ignorance of the Latin tongue; for, according to
   Eusebius, Mark, who had accompanied him from Babylon, acted as his
   interpreter. From Rome, Mark went to Egypt, and a tradition, which
   there seems no reason to discredit, ascribes to him the foundation of
   the Church at Alexandria, which was subsequently to become the
   metropolis of high Christian culture. [199]

   Many legends are linked with the names of the other disciples of the
   Apostles, and to each has been assigned a large share in the missions
   of the first century; but it is absolutely impossible to discriminate
   between the false and the true in this medley of fable. [200] There is
   no need to have recourse to the embellishments of tradition, in order
   to bring out the grandeur of the apostolic labors. Unadorned history
   amply justifies these words of Eusebius: "The apostles and disciples of
   the Saviour, scattered over the whole world, preached the Gospel
   every-where." [201] The blessed light which had risen in the East was
   diffused over a large portion of the world. [202] "In thus establishing
   the kingdom of Jesus Christ," says Theodoret, "the Christians made use
   of no carnal weapons; they employed no other force than that of
   persuasive words to demonstrate the excellence of his divine laws. They
   fulfilled their missions in the midst of dangers, enduring violence and
   wrong of every description in the cities through which they passed,
   being scourged, tortured, cast into dungeons, subjected to every kind
   of suffering. But though the bearers of these divine laws might be
   killed, the laws themselves were deathless. They proved only the more
   potent after the death of those who promulgated them, and in spite of
   the resistance of the Romans and the barbarians, they continued in
   undiminished force; and from the graves in which the Romans sought to
   bury the memory of these fishermen and tent-makers, that memory sprang
   into new and nobler life." [203]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [169] See Fabricius, "Salutaris lux Evangelii toto orbi oriens,"
   Hamburg, 1731, pp. 94, 95. Eusebius is here the principal source of our
   information. Nicephorus Callixtus, in the second book of his
   "Ecclesiastical History," supplies us with some authentic information.
   (Nicephori Callixti, "Ecclesiasticæ Historiæ," Libri XVIII.) The sort
   of romance of Abdias on the apostolic age has no kind of value. (Abdiæ,
   "Babylonæ Episcopi de Historia certaminis apostolici," Libri X. Edidit
   Wolfgangus Lazius, 1552.) It is a collection of absurd fables, with a
   strong monkish coloring. The Apostles are there made to celebrate mass,
   and preach sermons with three heads, before undergoing the most
   barbarous tortures. These absurd narratives have as their basis the
   "Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha." (Tischendorf edition, Lipsiæ, 1851.) See
   Thilo, "Codex Apocryphus N. Test.," Lipsiæ, 1833, and the "Codex
   Apocryphus" of Fabricius. We shall make much use of these writings when
   we presently trace the history of oral tradition in the second century.
   The "Acta Canctorum," and too often the "Memoires" of Tillemont,
   reproduce all these fables.

   [170] See Note M, at the end of the volume.

   [171] Niceph., "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 39.

   [172] Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.," iii, 1.

   [173] Nicephorus, "Hist. Eccles.," ii, 39. Hos kekoimētai en Ierapolei.
   (Eusebius, v. 24.) According to Eusebius, two of Philip's daughters
   continued virgins; while, according to Clement of Alexandria, they
   married. ("Stromat.," iii, 6.) Perhaps Eusebius confounded Philip the
   Apostle with Philip the Evangelist.

   [174] Ho Pantainos eis Indous helthein legetai entha logos auton
   heurein to kata Matthaion euangelion. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," v,
   10.) Sophronimus understands by the Indians the inhabitants of Arabia
   Felix. (Fabricius, "Lux Salutaris," p. 104.)

   [175] Eusebius, v, 10. Nicephorus (ii, 39) asserts that he had temples
   built in Asia; this gives us a measure of his historical value.

   [176] Nicephorus, ii, 40. The Ethiopian mission has been often ascribed
   to Matthew. His name might easily be confounded with Matthias.

   [177] Nicephorus, ii, 40.

   [178] This is the origin of the legend about the correspondence between
   Jesus Christ and Abgarus, King of Edessa. (Eusebius, i, 13.)

   [179] Nicephorus (ii, 40) says of Thomas: Hos kai ton ep' Haithiopias
   kai Indous klēron lachōn. Origen, according to Eusebius, (iii, 2,)
   ascribed the mission among the Parthians to Thomas; but their country
   bordered on India. The narrative of the missionary contemporary with
   Constantine is found in Philostorgius, iii, 4.

   [180] Eusebius, iii, 1.

   [181] "Acta Apost.," Tischendorf edition, p. 128.

   [182] Ibid., p. 129.

   [183] Ibid., p. 239.

   [184] Ibid., p. 249.

   [185] Lange, Kirchen Geschichte, vol. ii, p. 403.

   [186] The Epistle of Peter, addressed to these Churches, does not
   prove, as has been asserted, that he was at their head. We need only to
   remember how strong was at this time the sense of Christian oneness.

   [187] Josephus, "Ant.," XV, iii, 1.

   [188] Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII, ix, 1.

   [189] This is the sense we attach to the words hē en Babulōni
   suneklektē.

   [190] Baronius ("Annals," An. 45) gives the year 45 as the date of the
   Epistle of Peter; but it is evident that it was really written much
   later, for Silas was with Peter when he wrote, and Silas did not leave
   Paul till after his first journey into Europe, that is to say, after
   the year 52. Acts xviii, 18.

   [191] See Note I, at the end of the volume, on the Second Epistle of
   Peter.

   [192] Clement, "Epistle to the Corinthians," c. v.

   [193] "Acta Petri et Pauli," p. 1.

   [194] See the passage in Dyonisius: Amphō (Petros kai Paulos) kai eis
   tēn hēmeteran Korinthon phuteusantes hēmas, homoiōs edidaxan; homoiōs
   de kai eis tēn Italian homose didaxantes, hemarturēsan kata ton auton
   kairon. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles." ii, 25.)

   [195] Cyprian, "De non iterando baptismo."

   [196] Tou Petrou kai tou Paulou en Rōmē euangelizomenōn. (Irenæus,
   "Adv. Hæres," iii, 1.)

   [197] "Ubi Petrus passioni dominicæ adæquatur." (Tertullian,
   "Præscript.," 36.)

   [198] The opposite opinion to that we have expressed is very fully
   stated in Blumhart's "History of the Establishment of Christianity."

   [199] Eusebius, "Hist.," ii, 16. Eis tēn Alexandrian parrhēsia ton
   Christon kēruttōn. (Nicephorus, ii, 44.)

   [200] See Fabricius, "Lux Evangelii," pp. 115-117.

   [201] Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," iii, 1.

   [202] See in Fabricius a list of Churches founded in the apostolic age,
   pp. 83-92.

   [203] Ouch oplois chrēsamenoi alla peithontes. (Theodoret, "Therapeut.
   gent.," p. 115; "Opera," vol. iv, p. 610.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   § III. Mode of Primitive Evangelization. Origin of the First Three
   Gospels.

   Having now described the missions of the primitive Church in their
   rapid and fruitful expansion, we must characterize the method adopted
   at this period in the propagation of the truth. "Faith cometh by
   hearing," says St. Paul, (Rom. x, 17,) and he sums up, in these words,
   the leading principle and practice of the apostolic Church, which was
   much more occupied with preaching the Gospel than with the composition
   of new sacred books. The Apostles were, for the most part, unlettered
   men, and they would not be likely to write except under pressure of
   necessity. Their Master had left them no instructions on this point,
   and he himself had written nothing. He had founded the Church by his
   word. [204] Again, the expectation of his speedy return in glory was
   then general. They thought that at any moment he might appear in the
   clouds to judge the world. They had, therefore, no motive for
   concerning themselves with a distant future, and for committing to
   writing memories which were still living in the heart of the Church.
   The Church itself, but partially freed from the bondage of Judaism,
   found in the sacred books of God's ancient people a solid foundation
   for its faith; and the incontestable truth of what they believed was
   sufficiently confirmed to the Christians by the declarations of the
   prophets. Endowed with the richest gifts of the Spirit, they were
   perpetually conscious of the pure and life-giving breath of
   inspiration. Paul boldly declared that the new covenant was not in the
   letter, but in the Spirit. 2 Cor. iii, 3-7; Rom. vii, 6.

   None of the expressions by which preaching is spoken of in the New
   Testament can apply to written documents. That which is intended is
   always the living word, the solemn proclamation of the truth from the
   lips of witnesses. [205] When the Gospel is spoken of, the reference is
   not to a book, but to the substance of the apostolic preaching—to the
   good tidings of salvation, as the etymology of the word signifies. "The
   Apostles of Christ," says Eusebius, "purified in life, and adorned with
   all the virtues of the soul, but rough and uncultivated in speech,
   upheld simply by the power of Christ, through which they worked so many
   miracles—preached the kingdom of God to the whole world. They were not
   concerned to write books, being put in charge with a far grander and
   superhuman ministry." [206]

   For a long time the Church preferred the living to the written word.
   "If I met," says Papias, "a brother who had known the Apostles, I asked
   him carefully what they had said—what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas,
   James, John, and Matthew had said. I thought I could gather more from a
   living testimony than from books." [207] It was very natural that, at a
   time when the first generation of Christians was still alive, their
   words should have been preferred to their writings. The Apostles
   themselves attached more importance to their preaching than to their
   letters; they thought they could gain a stronger influence over the
   Churches by their presence than by their epistles, else they would have
   been willing to remain at a distance from them, and would not have so
   frequently expressed a desire to visit them again. Rom. xv, 32; 1 Cor.
   xvi, 5, 6; 2 Cor. xiii, 10. "Having many things to write unto you,"
   says John, "I would not write with paper and ink, but I trust to come
   unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." [208]

   It is in no degree our intention to detract from the importance of the
   written Gospels, but to throw, as far as may be possible within the
   limits imposed by our subject, some light on the question of their
   origin. It is proved that during many years the word of God was freely
   propagated by the living voice, and that the most flourishing Churches
   the world has known were founded by the preaching of the early
   missionaries. It was of vital importance, however, that the great facts
   of Christianity should be transmitted to posterity through a safer
   medium than mere oral tradition. After being set forth in several
   writings, which were not handed down beyond the first century, (Luke i,
   1,) they were cast into a permanent form in our canonical Gospels,
   which bear so manifestly the seal of inspiration. We shall not do more
   here than indicate the origin of the first three Gospels, which date
   from this period. [209]

   The origin of the Gospel of Mark is thus stated by Papias, who is
   himself only the echo of John the Presbyter, or the Elder: "Mark,
   having been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in
   order, the words and actions of Jesus Christ. His one great concern was
   to give, unaltered and unadulterated, that which he had heard." [210]
   Clement of Alexandria adds, that Mark wrote his Gospel at the express
   request of the hearers of Peter. [211] Luke himself clearly informs us
   of the motive which led him to write an account of the Gospel history.
   "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a
   declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, it
   seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things
   from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
   Theophilus." Luke i, 1-3. Matthew, according to Eusebius, wrote his
   Gospel in Hebrew on the eve of starting on his distant missions. Papias
   says, "Matthew made a collection in Hebrew of the discourses of the
   Lord Jesus, and each interpreted them as he was able." [212]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [204] We have mentioned the absurd legend given by Eusebius about the
   correspondence of Jesus Christ with the King of Edessa. (Eusebius,
   "Hist. Eccles.," i, 13.)

   [205] Logos. (James i, 22.) Logos akoēs. (1 Thess. ii, 13.) Kērugma.
   (Titus i, 3; 1 Cor. ii, 4; 1 Tim. i, 11; 2 Tim. ii, 2.)

   [206] Spoudēs tēs peri to logographein mikran poioumenoi phrontida.
   (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," iii, 24.)

   [207] Ou gar ta ek tōn bibliōn tosouton me hōphelein hupelambanon hoson
   ta para zōsēs phōnēs. (Eusebius, " Hist. Eccles.," iii, 39.)

   [208] 2 John 12. On this question see Gieseler, "Historisch-kritischer
   Versuch über die Enstehung der Evangelien," p. 70.

   [209] On the question of the sources of the synoptics, see my work,
   "Jesus Christ: His Life and Times," Book I, c. iv.

   [210] Markos men hermēneutēs Petrou genomenos hosa emnēmoneusen akribōs
   egrapsen, ou men toi taxei. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," iii, 39; vi,
   14.) It has been maintained that these words could not apply to our
   Gospel of Mark, which has, say the objectors, as much order as the
   rest. Let us observe, however: 1st. That the discourses of the Saviour
   are not grouped in Mark as in Matthew. 2d. That we do not find in it
   the chronological order followed by Luke. 3d. That there are in Mark
   strange omissions; for instance, there is no account of the birth of
   Jesus Christ. The expression ou taxei seems, therefore, justified.
   (Tholuck, "Glaubwürdigkeit der evangel. Gesch.," 2d ed., p. 242.) There
   are a number of Latinisms in Mark's Gospel which confirm the testimony
   of Papias as to its being written at Rome.

   [211] Eusebius, iii, 24.

   [212] Matthaios men oun Hebraidi dialektō ta logia sunegrapsato.
   Hērmēneuse d' auta hōs ēn dunatos hekastos. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.,"
   iii, 39.) According to Schleiermacher, the meaning of the last phrase
   was, that each gave his own interpretation of the discourses of Christ.
   It appears to us, that by comparing the word hērmēneuse with the word
   hermēneutēs, applied to Mark, we arrive at the sense we have given.
   From this passage it appears that we have only a translation of the
   first Gospel. This explains those points in the narrative which to the
   direct statement of an eye-witness present real difficulties, as for
   instance, Matt. xxi, 2, 5, 7.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § IV. First Roman Persecution of Christianity. Persecution in Judæa.
   Death of James, the brother of the Lord.

   Persecution always followed step by step in the track of Christian
   missions, endeavoring to sweep away their glorious results by torrents
   of blood, and succeeding only in watering and fructifying the buried
   seeds. We have already seen the outbreak of persecution in Judæa,
   giving to the Church its first martyrs. Paul had to encounter it in all
   his missionary journeys. We have left him at Rome loaded with chains,
   and awaiting his judgment. Up to the year 64 A. D., hostility to
   Christianity did not assume an official character. Opposition was
   offered, now in one city, now in another, but the Church was not as yet
   put under the ban of the empire. Its growth, however, had been so
   rapid, and its success so marked, that a terrible collision was
   inevitable with that imperial power which was the stronghold of all
   that Christianity came to destroy, and in which was personified that
   ancient order of things, the very basis of which Christianity was to
   undermine.

   This sanguinary collision took place in the latter part of the reign of
   Nero. Paganism could not have found a fitter representative than this
   Emperor. Persecutions against the Church must needs break forth at
   Rome, for the doctrine of the Church was on one essential point
   directly antagonistic to the theories of the ancient world. In that
   world, religion was closely associated with political organization.
   Polytheism had produced, as its natural result, State religions, which
   trampled on the rights of conscience. The individual had no personal
   guaranty, and must, under every circumstance, sacrifice himself to the
   State. Freedom of thought could only exist in the presence of religions
   thus established, by means of reservations and artifices strongly
   savoring of hypocrisy. The light in which religion was regarded by
   pagan antiquity is forcibly described by Cicero: "No one," he says,
   "has a right to have particular gods; no one may introduce new or
   strange gods not recognized by the law of the State." [213] Now the
   Christians most evidently did proclaim a new god within the empire.
   This accusation had been already brought against Paul at Philippi.
   "These men," it was said of Paul and Barnabas, "teach customs which are
   not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans." Acts
   xvi, 21. Christianity was not formally denounced as an unlawful
   religion until later, but its character of novelty placed it, from the
   first, at issue with the law. It might, perhaps, have even longer
   escaped the attention of the Cæsars if these had not been rendered, by
   a concurrence of events, peculiarly hostile to religious innovation.
   The Emperors were repeatedly troubled at this period by the inroads of
   strange superstitions. They were thus made conscious of the agitation
   of men's minds, and of the dull discontent which was pervading the
   ancient world. They had repeatedly taken severe measures for the
   repression of these dangerous novelties, with a view to restore the
   dignity of the national religion. A senatus consultum was passed in the
   reign of Claudius, which commanded the priests to attend vigilantly to
   the renewed observance of the ancient ceremonies of the
   Haruspices—"lest," as we read in the recital, "the ancient usages of
   Italy fall into desuetude through the prevalence of foreign
   superstitions." [214] It is clear that the imperial policy was
   eminently unfavorable to the introduction of oriental religions; it was
   awake and on its guard; Christianity, therefore, was in grave danger.
   By a strange contradiction, the new religion was rendered obnoxious
   equally by the features in which it resembled, and in which it differed
   from, Judaism. On the one hand, it was, by the mass of pagans,
   confounded with Judaism; on the other hand, the Jews themselves were
   its most bitter and most subtle foes and calumniators. The Jews were,
   as we know, objects of hatred and contempt to the pagans. Their spirit
   of insubordination constantly awakened the suspicions of the imperial
   power. Suetonius informs us that Claudius had issued a decree banishing
   all Jews from Rome, as a punishment for their constant agitations.
   [215] It was, then, no recommendation to the Church to pass for a
   Jewish sect. But while thus confounded by the majority of the Gentiles
   with this execrated people, it was vehemently repudiated by the
   synagogue, which found means at Rome, as elsewhere, to stir up the
   passions of the populace by artful insinuations against the Christians.
   The Church was thus at once implicated in the unpopularity of the Jews
   and made the victim of Jewish intrigues. But there was a deeper reason
   for the passionate opposition so quickly shown to the new religion, in
   the incompatibility of the principles of the Christian life with the
   corruption of the ancient world. Paganism felt itself judged and
   condemned by a purity of faith and practice of which, till then, it had
   not had even a conception. Christianity cleaves like a lightning flash
   the thick darkness of antiquity. At once irritated and humiliated,
   Roman paganism will treat the Church as Jewish formalism has treated
   the Lord Christ. "Away with him," rang the cry through the streets of
   Jerusalem; "Away with him," was now re-echoed from the walls of Rome.

   The determining cause of the persecution under Nero was the astonishing
   success of the new religion in the capital of the world. It had been
   tolerated so long as it could be ignored. The apocryphal letter from
   Pilate to Tiberius, which is said to have led that Emperor to propose
   to the senate to admit the God of the Christians into the Roman
   Pantheon, has no marks of authenticity. [216] It is certain that the
   Emperors took no heed of Christianity till they were constrained to do
   so by the popular voice. The first persecution was in reality a
   satisfaction given to the hatred of the populace. We find no trace of
   edicts proscribing Christianity in a general manner. Legal persecution
   was not declared until subsequently. Nero played the part enacted by
   Pilate in the crucifixion of Christ. He sacrificed the innocent to the
   blind fury of a misled crowd. He added to his villainy by casting on
   the Christians the imputation of having set fire to the city. But he
   only chose them as his victims because public execration was loud
   against them. "To put to silence the rumors raised against himself,"
   says Tacitus, "Nero laid his own crime on certain persons rendered
   odious by their heinous offenses, and whom the people called
   Christians; on these he inflicted the most cruel punishments." [217] It
   was this blind and cruel popular hatred which gave occasion for the
   first persecution. It is important to ascertain the grounds of this
   animosity, and to investigate the calumnies brought against the
   Christians.

   These calumnies have no connection with the subtle and perfidious
   accusations of the philosophers. We are brought face to face with
   popular prejudices in their grossest form. It would be a serious
   anachronism to transplant into the first century, and into the midst of
   the Roman populace, the learned objections of a Celsus or a Lucian.
   Tacitus himself puts us on the track of the charges which, in the year
   65, were current in Rome against the Christians. "They were convicted,"
   according to his statement, "not of the burning of Rome, but of the
   crime of hating the human race." [218] We discern in this accusation
   the confusion, so common, of the Church with the synagogue. The Jews
   did actually merit this accusation by their intractable pride and
   arrogant contempt of all other nations. This prejudice against the
   Christians, arising from a mistaken identification of them with their
   bitterest enemies, was probably strengthened by warnings uttered by
   them of a coming terrible judgment of God. They proclaimed the
   condemnation of sinful humanity; they painted its doom in prophetic
   pictures; they borrowed the strong colors of the ancient seers to
   produce a salutary terror. They spoke, doubtless, of those flames of
   judgment which should consume a godless world. It was easy, by
   materializing that which was spiritual, to represent them as dangerous
   conspirators, capable of causing the conflagration they predicted, and
   of bringing about by their own efforts the accomplishment of their
   prophecies. Their preaching must have been thus travestied to furnish
   the shadow of a pretext for the absurd accusation brought against them.

   When Tacitus adds, that they were odious for their crimes and
   abominations, [219] he doubtless alludes to the infamous reports so
   long circulated against the Christians, to which Justin Martyr
   subsequently gave an indignant denial. "Do you believe," he exclaims,
   "that we devour men, and that, after our evening meal, we extinguish
   the lights to cover with darkness a hideous debauch?" These very
   calumnies are repeated in detail in the "Octavius" of Minutius Felix.
   "Must we not groan," says the champion of paganism, "when men belonging
   to a wretched, illegal, desperate faction rise up against the gods? a
   sect loving darkness, hating the day; it is silent in public, but loud
   in its secret retreats; it despises the gods and mocks at sacred
   things. Its members call each other brothers and sisters to add incest
   to idolatry. They drink the blood of a child, divide its members among
   them, make a covenant over this horrid sacrifice, and are pledged to
   silence by their common participation in crime." [220] "We are
   accused," says Tertullian, "of practicing infanticide in our sacred
   rites, of then feeding on the flesh of the victim, and concluding our
   feasts with incest." [221] These quotations from the " Fathers " are a
   true commentary on the words of Tacitus. In the next century we shall
   meet again with these vile accusations, with the addition of other yet
   more treacherous insinuations; but it is obvious that those now cited
   were the basis of all the rest. It is easy to see that they are a gross
   misrepresentation of Christian worship, and, in particular, of the
   Lord's Supper, in which the sacred symbols of the body of Christ were
   dispensed. The Church had cunning adversaries who knew how to malign
   her artfully, and who, observing the absence of all outward display in
   her worship, brought against her the charge of atheism. When we
   remember that through Poppæa the Jews of Rome had at this time the
   favor and the ear of Nero, we shall wonder the less at the success of
   their intrigues. One of the most ancient writers of the Church, Melito
   of Sardis, undoubtedly had these underhand practices in view when he
   said: "Nero and Domitian, incited by the councils of certain malicious
   persons, have endeavored to bring reproach on our religion. They have
   bequeathed to their successors these false accusations against us."
   [222] These calumnies would have produced no effect, however, if the
   Church had not increased in Rome in a remarkable manner. "This
   detestable superstition," says Tacitus, "broke out on all sides, not
   only in Judæa, but in the city of Rome itself. Tacitus might have added
   that it had found its way even into the palace of the Cæsars, for St.
   Paul wrote to the Philippians at the same period: " My bonds in Christ
   are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places." Phil. i, 13.
   The presence at Rome of the great Apostle of the Gentiles had been the
   principal cause of the rapid propagation of the new faith.

   It was not possible that the Gospel should be disseminated in the
   metropolis of paganism without exciting vehement opposition. It could
   not, for the reasons already pointed out, engage public opinion without
   inflaming it against itself. Was it not in the world as a burning brand
   which was to set on fire the rotten edifice of a voluptuous and
   skeptical society? The self-interested devotees of paganism, men like
   Demetrius the silversmith, were even more numerous at Rome than at
   Ephesus. The Church had but to show itself, to be accursed. Nothing is
   more easy of explanation than this hatred of the Roman people to
   Christianity, and their eagerness to heap upon it undeserved reproach.

   But though the first persecution was popular, it is none the less
   chargeable on the crowned tyrant who provoked it. Eusebius eloquently
   says, "Nothing was wanting to Nero but to add to his other titles that
   of being the first emperor who declared war against Christianity."
   [223] His object was to divert from himself the suspicions of the
   people, who justly accused him of having set fire to a great part of
   the city to gratify a fantastic whim. He caused the Christians to be
   seized and tortured to compel them to confess a crime of which he
   himself was guilty. He thought that the spectacle of their death would
   compensate for that of the conflagration of the city, which had been
   amusing to none but himself. Blending buffoonery with cruelty, he
   devised the plan of clothing the Christians in the skins of wild beasts
   that they might be torn by the dogs. The Emperor assumed at this time
   an air of the greatest condescension, appearing in the circus in a
   plebeian garb, and mixing familiarly with the people. Some Christians
   were crucified; others, having been rubbed over with pitch, were made
   to serve as torches to light up the imperial gardens. [224] This
   fearful persecution did not extend beyond Rome. It was contrived for
   the amusement and exculpation of the Emperor, and was one of the awful
   caprices of that mad despot, who studied crime as a work of art. [225]

   This first persecution produced a deep impression through the whole
   Church. Nero became to the Christians the type of Antichrist, and Rome
   a new Babylon, "the mother of harlots, drunken with the blood of
   saints." We trace this sentiment in all its vividness in the
   representations of the Apocalypse, which show us thousands of martyrs
   around the throne of God, crying for vengeance on the great whore
   seated on the seven hills. Nero seemed to the Church a sort of
   personification of the infernal powers leagued against her, and she
   could scarcely believe at his death that he had disappeared for ever.
   If we credit the Sibylline oracles, the Church lived in constant
   expectation of seeing him return from the far East to enter afresh into
   bloody warfare with the saints. [226]

   St. Paul was probably put to death during this persecution, at the same
   time as St. Peter. According to a doubtful tradition, the latter was
   crucified with his head downward. Clement of Alexandria relates that
   Peter's wife went before him to death, and that the Apostle, calling
   her by name, addressed to her these simple and touching words,
   "Remember thou the Lord." [227] Caius, who lived at the commencement of
   the third century, says that he saw at Rome the tombs of the two
   Apostles, and we have no reason to question his testimony. [228] Among
   the mass of legends associated with the death of the two Apostles is
   one which, without possessing any historical value, has real beauty. We
   read in the "Acts of the Saints," that as Peter was trying to leave
   Rome to escape martyrdom, Jesus Christ suddenly appeared to him. Peter
   said, "Lord, whither goest thou?" The Lord replied, "I go to Rome, to
   be crucified." The Apostle understood that the words were to be
   fulfilled in him. [229] It was truly Jesus who suffered and was
   crucified in the persons of his disciples in that fearful persecution.
   From this assurance they drew all their comfort and strength.

   While paganism was thus waging cruel warfare with the Church, Judaism
   in Palestine was persistent likewise in its hatred. James, the brother
   of the Lord, was put to death a short time before Peter and Paul.
   Neither his great popularity nor the unanimous respect he inspired,
   could avail to save him. The Pharisees were his implacable adversaries.
   He was, as we have said, a Jew after God's heart, and therefore raised
   immeasurably above the Judaism of his day; for it was impossible to
   embrace heartily the old covenant without being led on to the new.
   Piety so sincere and lofty as his was the crying condemnation of
   Pharisaism—a condemnation so much the more direct because conveyed
   under the very form of the old religion.

   According to the statement of Hegesippus, [230] as the influence of
   James went on increasing day by day, the Scribes and Pharisees sought
   to lead him into a denial of his faith before the whole people
   assembled for the Passover feast. "Persuade the multitude," they said,
   "not to fall into error with regard to this Jesus. [231] We have all
   confidence in thee, also the people know that thou art a just man, and
   regardest not the persons of men." They brought him into the Temple and
   questioned him before the multitude. "Tell us, O thou just one," they
   said, "tell us what is the doctrine of Jesus?" [232] "You ask me,"
   replied James, "of Jesus the Son of man; he is in heaven, at the right
   hand of the Almighty, and he will come again in the clouds." At these
   words the many Christians who were in the crowd uttered a loud hosanna.
   The enemies of James, furious at finding their crafty design turned
   against themselves, fell upon him, threw him down from the top of the
   Temple steps, and began stoning him. While the just man was praying for
   his murderers with his dying breath, a fanatic workman fell on him, and
   with heavy blows from a stick dispatched him. [233] The death of James
   was followed by a violent persecution of the Churches in Palestine. The
   letter which was addressed to them at this time by one of the disciples
   of Paul, probably Apollos, and known under the name of the Epistle to
   the Hebrews, was designed to strengthen the hearts of the Christians in
   Palestine under the ordeal of a fiery persecution. Still clinging, as
   they did, to Jewish prejudices, local and ceremonial, it was to them
   peculiarly grievous to be driven from the Temple, and compelled to
   relinquish the regular observance of the worship of their fathers.
   [234] It was needful that they should learn from the author of the
   Epistle to the Hebrews to distinguish between vanishing types and the
   eternal realities of true religion. Great trials were yet awaiting
   them, for already the imperial armies were marching upon the Holy City,
   to make of its ruins the signal monument of the justice of God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [213] "Nisi publice adscitos." (Cicero, "De Legibus," ii, 8.)

   [214] Viderent pontifices quæ retinenda firmandaque haruspicum ne
   vetustissima Italiæ disciplina per desidiam exolesceret. (Tacitus,
   "Annals," xi, 5.)

   [215] Judæos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulsit."
   (Suetonius, "Claudius," 25.) The hypothesis of a tumult incited by the
   Christians is not tenable. The Church of Rome did not acquire any
   importance till after this date. Suetonius is, then, in error when he
   accuses the Christians of rebellion; but the decree issued by Claudius
   cannot be brought in question.

   [216] This letter may be read in the Apocryphal Gospels, Tischendorf
   edit., p. 411. See also Tertullian, "Apologia," c. xxi; Eusebius,
   "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 2.

   [217] "Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, et quæsitissimis pœnis
   affecit quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat."
   (Tacitus, "Annals," xv, 44.)

   [218] "Haud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis
   convicti sunt."

   [219] "Flagitia pudenda."

   [220] "Homines deploratæ illicitæ ac desperatæ factionis. Latebrosa et
   lucifugax natio. . . . se promiscue appellant fratres et sorores."
   (Minutius Felix, "Octavius," c. viii, ix.)

   [221] "Dicimur sceleratissimi de sacramento infanticidii et pabulo inde
   et post convivium incesto." (Tertull., "Apol.," vii.)

   [222] Hupo tinōn baskai ōn anthrōpōn anapeisthentes. (Routh, "Reliquiæ
   Sacræ," i, p. 117.)

   [223] Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 25.

   [224] "In usum nocturni luminis." (Tacitus, xiii, 44.)

   [225] Orosius (vii, 7) asserts, without giving any proof, that Nero's
   persecution was general.

   [226] "Orac. Sibyll.," iv, 116.

   [227] Clement, "Stromat.," vii, 736.

   [228] Eusebius, ii, 25.

   [229] "Acta Sanctorum." (Junius, iv, 432.)

   [230] The account of Hegesippus is to be found in Eusebius, "Hist.
   Eccl.," ii, 23. We quote it from the text as given by Routh, "Reliquiæ
   Sacræ," i, pp. 209-211.

   [231] Peison oun su ton hochlon peri Iēsou mē planasthai, ("Reliquiæ
   Sacræ," i, p. 210.)

   [232] Tis hē thura. Literally, "What is the door?" that is to say, what
   admits to the sect? in other words, what is its doctrine?

   [233] It cannot be denied that in the detail of Hegesippus's narrative
   there is a certain theatrical air; but in substance the story seems
   authentic. (Neander, "Pflanz.," ii, 181.) The passage in Josephus
   ("Archælog.," xx, 9, 1) has no more impress of authenticity than that
   referring to Jesus Christ.

   [234] See Note J, at the end of the volume, on the author of the
   Epistle to the Hebrews.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER III.

    VARIOUS FORMS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IN THE SECOND PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC
    AGE.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § I. Fundamental Unity in Diversity.

   THE apostolic age did not arrive at once at the full consciousness of
   the treasures of truth committed to it. After its first period, which
   was, like a blessed childhood, all calmness and simplicity, it entered
   upon an era of prolonged conflicts. Did these conflicts make, as some
   have asserted, a schism among the Apostles, and did they lead to the
   formation of two hostile Churches—the Judaistic Church, under the
   conduct of Peter and James, and the Church freed from the synagogue,
   under the leadership of Paul? Can we discover two contradictory
   doctrinal systems, as widely divided the one from the other as were
   subsequently the heresy of the Ebionites and the orthodox faith? This
   is the question before us for solution.

   We have already several times incidentally approached it; we must now
   give it full consideration, for it is the great theological question of
   the day. Raised by a scholar of the first rank, distinguished for his
   laborious research, and the head of a numerous school, it presents
   itself under continually varying forms. In order to show its full
   bearing, it will be necessary first to state the view of primitive
   Christianity taken by those who differ from ourselves. According to
   Baur, we have in the apostolic age two religious parties in radical
   opposition within the bosom of the Church. On the one hand, the twelve
   Apostles range under their banner all the advocates of the perpetual
   obligation of Judaism; on the other hand, Paul represents the party of
   emancipation. The former are faithful to the true intention of Jesus
   Christ, who preached only a spiritualized Judaism, in all points
   corresponding to Ebionitism. Paul introduces an entirely new element.
   The contest is declared at Jerusalem and at Antioch, and is carried on
   in all the Churches. There is no trace of reconciliation between the
   Apostles during their life, but Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans,
   makes the first advance toward conciliation by his strong declaration
   of love for his nation, and his prediction of its glorious future. He
   takes a second step in the same direction when, on his last visit to
   Jerusalem, he joins himself to some Jewish Christians, who had taken
   upon them the vow of the Nazarite. But this attempt at reconciliation
   was too premature to lead to any result. The Judaizing party were
   inveterate in their hatred to the great Apostle, who is plainly
   referred to in the following century, in the "Clementines," under the
   name of Simon Magus. Even in this curious document, however, tokens of
   an approaching reconciliation may be discerned. The Judaistic party
   makes some concessions. In the first place, baptism is substituted for
   circumcision; then Peter is represented as the Apostle of the Gentiles.
   The reputed Epistle of James continues this good work by combating the
   spirit of Judaism in its exaggerated form, no less than the Pauline
   school. This school responds to these advances. The Epistle to the
   Hebrews is designed to harmonize the views of Paul with Judaism,
   interpreted, or rather allegorized, after the Alexandrine method. The
   Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians take the same ground,
   for they tend to show that the death of Jesus Christ has effected a
   reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, the two great sections of
   mankind. But the document which most evidently bears the trace of these
   conciliatory intentions is that ascribed to Luke, and known as the Acts
   of the Apostles. The writer endeavors to effect a sort of retrospective
   reconciliation between the Apostles, and he does it with consummate
   skill, by representing Peter as a satellite of St. Paul, and putting
   into his mouth utterances worthy only of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
   The tradition relating to Peter's sojourn at Rome, his connection with
   Paul, and their common martyrdom, belong to the same system. The
   pastoral letters which so forcibly denounce the dangers of anti-Judaic
   Gnosticism, as well as the letters to which the names of the apostolic
   Fathers are attached, are animated by the same spirit. The final result
   of all these attempts at conciliation is the composition of the fourth
   Gospel, which resolves all contradictions. It rises into the lofty
   regions of transcendental philosophy, leaving far below all past
   differences. To the writer of that Gospel, Jews and Gentiles come into
   one and the same category; they both belong to the kingdom of darkness,
   which is perpetually at war with the kingdom of light. [235]

   Such is the system which, during almost twenty years, has been
   perpetually under discussion in Germany. We have already refuted many
   of its statements. Never did the criticism of internal evidence assume
   such license. Its proofs are, in truth, drawn not from writings of
   which it is the business of the critic to fix the date, but from the
   preconceived system of the theologian. All that does not coincide with
   that system is prejudged and rejected. A purely hypothetical chronology
   is thus assigned to the monuments of the apostolic age. The most
   speculative theories are readily admitted as axioms, by which other
   hypotheses may be established. The results arrived at by sound
   criticism with reference to the principal writings of the New Testament
   suffice to undermine the very foundation of all this skillful
   theorizing. Indeed, the very elaborateness of the system suggests
   doubt. How can we suppose such wise diplomacy in the first two
   centuries of the Church? The New Testament, according to the Tübingen
   school, must have been written after the manner of the protocols of a
   congress—a singular explanation, surely, of that sublime simplicity
   which lends to it all its charm and power. We have already shown, in
   giving an account of the conference at Jerusalem, and of the dispute at
   Antioch, that the violence on either side was not on the part of the
   Apostles, but was excited by fanatical Jewish agitators. The picture we
   shall draw of the heresies of the primitive Church will give still more
   demonstrative evidence of this important fact. Besides, an attentive
   study of the various forms of apostolic doctrine proves that nothing
   can be more false than the theory that they were essentially at
   variance, so that there really existed two systems of Christianity,
   that of James and Peter, and that of Paul. The hypothesis of a decided
   opposition between the Apostles being once set aside, there remains no
   reason for supposing any of those retrospective attempts at
   conciliation by which the historical facts of the first century are
   said to have been transmuted. We do not deny that the reconciliation of
   the Christians of Jewish origin with those gathered from among the
   Gentiles was gradual, but we see no ground for postponing it to the
   second century, in opposition to the testimony of the Acts, and that of
   Paul's Epistles.

   Reduced to their true proportions, the divergences between the sacred
   writers no longer present themselves as radical or irreconcilable; on
   the contrary, they form the regular steps of a ladder, which enables us
   to rise gradually to the culminating point of revelation. Among these
   types of doctrine, two are distinguished by their originality and their
   broad results; the other two represent no less an important aspect of
   the truth, to which it was well that a sort of independent prominence
   should in this way be given, because it would not have been definable
   with sufficient clearness in the wide synthesis of doctrine presented
   by St. Paul and St. John.

   The attempt to represent the doctrine of James and of Peter, as opposed
   to that of Paul, really arises from a false view of the relation of the
   Old and New Testament. Those who hold that the old economy germinally
   contains the new, see no antagonism between the doctrine of James and
   that of the Apostle of the Gentiles. It is too commonly forgotten that
   the Judaism of James had no analogy with Pharisaism. It was, as we have
   said, the true ideal Judaism which was in harmony with the designs of
   God—a Judaism, consequently, which contained all the principal elements
   of Christianity. Developed and expanded by the acceptance of the
   Gospel, it could not differ essentially from the doctrine taught by St.
   Paul. James had been brought to a profound comprehension of the old
   covenant; he had grasped its spirit, and the fundamental principle
   which was to survive the theocratic forms in which it had been
   incarnated, as the life of the soul subsists after its bodily tenement
   has crumbled into dust. This fundamental principle was in its essence
   the conception of right, of justice, of duty, of conscience. James, in
   transferring this to Christianity, only introduced into it a permanent
   element of all true religion. On the other hand, Paul understood the
   Gospel too well not to perceive its point of contact with the Old
   Testament, and from the height on which he stood, the unity of the
   divine plan could not escape his notice. If, then, we admit the
   existence in the primitive Church of two types of doctrine, we
   nevertheless deny that these constituted two different systems of
   Christianity. The theologians who trace the commencement of Gnosticism
   to Paul, and of Ebionitism to James, are guilty of a strange
   anachronism. To us it is clear that both Apostles draw from one common
   source—the teaching and the life of Christ. In all there is manifest
   the influence of one and the same Spirit.

   With these reservations, we do not for a moment deny the presence of
   differences among the sacred writers; unity prevails, but diversity
   exists. Nor do we at all dispute that of the two principal doctrinal
   types of the apostolic era the second is immeasurably broader and
   richer than the first; but the first has, nevertheless, its own
   peculiar value, and is admirably adapted to meet the moral necessities
   of every age. The diversity thus recognized is perfectly explained by
   the method of the Gospel revelation, which comes to us not in the form
   of a code, but is borne to us, as it were, wave upon wave, on the flood
   of the life of the primitive Church.

   Each of the sacred writers preserves his individuality and speaks his
   own language. The imperfections of detail in each are like his peculiar
   accent; they testify to his being a free organ of the Spirit of God,
   not a mere passive instrument. They all melt into the great central
   light of truth produced by the collective testimony of the Apostles. It
   is this collective testimony which alone is authoritative, and which
   sets us free from the rabbinical yoke of isolated words under which the
   Church has been too long in bondage.

   We cannot consent, moreover, to regard the writers of the New Testament
   only as the first of theologians. They moved in a sphere superior to
   theology; they possessed, as no other generation of Christians has
   done, the Spirit of God. Nor did they arrange their views in systematic
   form. "St. Paul," it has been very justly observed, "does not decide
   questions by metaphysical principles, and does not pride himself on
   scientific exactness." [236] So true is this, that it is impossible to
   reduce into complete unity the various elements of his teaching.
   Systems, properly so called, were not formed till a later period. Taken
   as a whole, the apostolic doctrine, which, while passing through
   various phases from James to John still remained the same in substance,
   may be regarded as the highest and fullest expression of truth. It is
   the rule and the standard of Christian theology, which has not to seek
   out new elements, but to gather up and classify those which are
   supplied, with all the inexhaustible abundance of a well of living
   waters, in the canonical books of the New Testament. But it is
   important to trace in the sacred writings the admirable progression of
   truth, to observe the unity underlying their variety, and to give to
   each its own place and rank, if we wish to have a living and spiritual
   conception of inspiration instead of a mere mechanical notion.

   Three types of doctrine are presented to us in this second period of
   the apostolic age. Each of these is characterized by the solution it
   gives to the question of the relation of the two covenants. The old
   covenant was based upon two great institutions, the law and prophecy.
   James regards the new covenant as the expansion of the law; Peter sees
   in it, primarily, the fulfillment of prophecy. As prophecy was a sort
   of anticipation of Christianity, Peter is by his view brought into
   closer sympathy with Paul, whose influence upon him is also very
   evident. Paul is much less concerned with showing the relations of the
   two covenants, than with bringing out their differences. The new
   covenant is to him essentially a new fact, the proclamation of pardon,
   the sovereign manifestation of grace—in one word, the Gospel. [237] He
   is not in opposition either to James or Peter. He accepts the
   fundamental idea of James, but disengages it from all restrictions. The
   law, which seemed to abolish by grace, receives from that very grace a
   new sanction; it comes forth from the Gospel as from a crucible,
   purified and spiritualized. Peter's view is also just and true. Judaism
   is truly fulfilled by Christianity, and Paul sets forth with much
   philosophy its preparatory value. If, then, the Apostle of the Gentiles
   was constrained more than once to oppose primitive Judæo-Christianity,
   he nevertheless gave it all legitimate satisfaction in the full
   synthesis of his doctrine. He in this way deprived it of any ground for
   holding itself as a school apart. He abolished by comprehending it. It
   could not henceforward live again except as heresy, external to the
   Church. The reconciliation was brought about in the most natural manner
   in the apostolic age by the harmonizing of two elements of truth,
   designed thus to combine and complete each other.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [235] See note K, at the end of the volume.

   [236] Ritschl., "Alt. Cath. Kirche," p. 67.

   [237] Schmid, "Biblische Theologie," ii, 90.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § II. Doctrine of James. [238]

   The main idea running through the whole Epistle of James is that of the
   permanence of the law and of moral obligation under the Christian
   dispensation. The law is taken by the sacred writer in its deepest
   sense; it is to him the expression of absolute good. He does not speak,
   in fact, so much of particular precepts of the law, as of the law
   regarded as an indivisible whole, and restored to that unity which is
   inseparable from spirituality. James ii, 11; iv, 11.; The royal law is
   a law of love, [239] a perfect law, and a law of liberty. [240] James
   identifies it with the Word of God: "Be ye doers of the word." [241] If
   he does not use this expression in the metaphysical sense in which St.
   John employs it, he attaches to it, nevertheless, a very broad
   signification. The Word is the manifestation of God, or the sum and
   substance of the revelation of himself in religious history. Clearly
   the Word preached by Jesus Christ is pre-eminently the Word of God;
   [242] it is, therefore, the supreme law, raised infinitely above the
   law of Moses. This is no mere external commandment; it is a spiritual
   law, to be engrafted into the heart of man. [243] l It is to be
   observed, that James preserves a complete silence as to the ceremonial
   law; he says not a single word about it; he makes no allusion to
   circumcision, to the rites of the Mosaic worship, or to the sacrifices.
   Had he been truly the representative of the school of Judaizing
   Christians, so opposed to the spirit and teachings of Paul, he would
   certainly have protested in his letter against the growing freedom of
   Christian practice. We find James, in his Epistle, just as we have seen
   him in the Acts: he does not attach any universal obligation to the
   observance of the Mosaic law; he himself conforms to its rites only
   because of his nationality; and he insists alone on the great and
   eternal principle of all morality—conformity to the will of God.

   Thus understood, the law, so far from being opposed to faith, is
   intimately associated with it; James never separates them. True to his
   practical point of view, he brings out the indissoluble union of faith
   and works. Deeply convinced that moral obligation is as real under the
   Gospel as under the old covenant, he deprecates any teaching which,
   under pretext of magnifying salvation by faith alone, should lessen the
   importance of good works. He does not pretend that these suffice for
   man's justification. [244] They are produced by a living faith, as the
   ear is produced from the living blade. "Show me thy faith without thy
   works," he exclaims, "and I will show thee my faith by my works." James
   ii, 18. So far from pleading, as he has been accused of doing, the
   cause of works as opposed to faith, he powerfully defends the rights of
   faith. He repudiates faith apart from works, because it is then no
   longer faith; it is dead in (or by) itself [245] When he says that
   Abraham was justified by works, he hastens to add that "faith wrought
   with his works." [246] It is not true to assert that James regarded
   faith simply as confidence in God—the opposite of doubt and
   wavering—and that in this respect he does not advance beyond the
   conception of the Old Testament. [247] He argues that faith should be
   characterized by holy love, and should thus be distinguished from the
   faith of devils, which is a light without heat, enlightening without
   transforming: "they believe and tremble." James ii, 19. To believe
   without trembling is to rest entirely on the love of God; it is to love
   him, and such a faith will be manifested by love. There shall be
   judgment without mercy for him who hath showed no mercy; mercy rises
   above judgment. [248] Hardness toward others is the more unpardonable
   in a Christian, because he has himself been the object of infinite
   compassion. This divine compassion requires that we forgive as we have
   been forgiven, and leaves us without excuse for harshness and
   uncharitableness toward our fellow-creatures. The great fact of God's
   pardon granted to men is clearly stated elsewhere by James. He says of
   the sick over whom is offered the prayer of faith, that "if he have
   committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." James iv, 15. If, then, in
   the eyes of the sacred writer, the gravest sin is the want of mercy, it
   follows that the best work is that of showing compassionate love to our
   neighbor. Love is the center of the moral life, as it is the center of
   the divine life. Thus faith and works are closely connected; they flow
   from the same source. Faith is the acceptance of the love of God; works
   are its realization and reflection. We have in this, as in the old
   economy, a law, but it is the law of love proclaimed with new power;
   the two economies meet and form a perfect whole.

   In faith divorced from works, James combated intellectual dogmatism,
   the opus operatum of doctrine, as Paul had combated the opus operatum
   of legal formalism. Both are the champions of true religion, which has
   for its basis the royal law of love. We find in James the doctrine of
   grace very clearly taught. "Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is
   from above, and cometh down from the father of lights." "Of his own
   will begat he us with the word of truth." James i, 17, 18. The Spirit
   of God dwelleth in Christians; [249] it is he who gives them grace to
   walk in the way of holiness. We have here a mystical element
   introduced, which raises us far above mere Judæo-Christianity.

   The great argument urged to prove an irreconcilable difference between
   the Epistle of James and the form of doctrine presented by Paul, is the
   entire silence of the former on all the historical facts of the Gospel.
   He says nothing of the death and resurrection of the Saviour or of his
   miracles. But if these facts are nowhere distinctly mentioned, they are
   every-where implied; the views—so clear, so beautiful—of God's
   forgiveness and mercy expressed by James would be unmeaning without
   them. The Gospel history silently but surely underlies the whole
   epistle. Is it not in view of the cross, where the deepest' distress
   has issued in the most glorious triumph, that James pens the noble
   words with which his letter opens, "My brethren, count it all joy, when
   ye fall into divers temptations?" James i, 1. Is not his enlarged and
   spiritualized conception of the law derived from the words of the
   Master? With James, as with St. Paul, the object of faith is Jesus
   Christ, whom, in recognition of his majesty, he calls "the Lord of
   glory." [250] The duty of the Christian is, according to him, to await
   the "second coming of the Lord." [251] With such declarations as these
   before us, it is impossible to regard James as an adversary of St.
   Paul. Doubtless the doctrine of James, as compared with that of the
   great Apostle, is very rudimentary. There is a vast distance between
   the vigorous dialectics of the author of the Epistle to the Romans, and
   the sententious language of the Epistle of James, in which the thread
   of the argument is constantly broken, or is concealed under the
   somewhat monotonous stateliness of the oriental style. But the main
   thought of the writer comes out the more prominently, because it is not
   incorporated in a broad dogmatic system. The earnest moral tone of this
   Epistle, with its graphic and striking images, commends it as a
   healthful tonic to the Christian conscience.

   The sacred writer designed his letter for Churches of which he knew the
   internal condition. It has been wrongly asserted that he had in view
   only a Judaized and Pharisaic form of Christianity, altogether alien to
   Pauline doctrine. [252] We believe that it was also his intention to
   oppose certain exaggerations of the teaching of Paul, which had gained
   currency in the countries bordering on Palestine. A sapless and
   fruitless Christianity, in which doctrinal controversies took the place
   of good works, threatened to overspread the Churches in which the
   opposing parties had come into collision. This is the danger which
   James is anxious to avert. He condemns these aberrations by the general
   principle set forth in his epistle; and his arguments go to maintain,
   not (as has been pretended) the severe asceticism of some writers of
   the Old Testament, but the permanence of moral obligation under the two
   economies. It was needful to remind those who were Christians in word
   only, that they would have to appear before the just Judge. James
   brought into full relief the severe side of Christianity, without
   detracting at all from the divine mercy. On the contrary, he reads in
   that mercy itself a law not less stringent than the law of Moses, and
   accompanied with the same solemn sanction. Thus closely did he connect
   the Gospel with the Old Testament, and thus admirably fulfill, not for
   his contemporaries only, but for all generations, his special mission
   as the man of a transition period.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [238] In addition to the works already quoted, see Neander's "Practical
   Exposition of the Epistle of James."

   [239] Ei méntoi nómon teleite basilikòn. James ii, 8.

   [240] Nómon téleion, tòn tē̂s e̓leutherías. James i, 25.

   [241] Gínesthe dè poiētaì lógon. James i, 22.

   [242] "Which is able to save your souls." James i, 21.

   [243] Tòn e̓́mphuton lógon. James i, 21. M. Reuss erroneously
   detracts from the significance of this expression by regarding it
   merely as an allusion to the parable of the sower. ("History of
   Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age," I, 378.)

   [244] James speaks of righteousness as imputed: e̓logísthē ei̓s
   dikaiosúnēn. James ii, 23.

   [245] Nekrá e̓stin kath' e̔autḗn. James ii, 17.

   [246] Hē pístis sunḗrgei toîs e̓́rgois au̓toû. James ii, 22.

   [247] This is M. Reuss's idea. i, 378.

   [248] Katakauchatai e̓́leos kríseōs. James ii, 13.

   [249] Tò Pneûma, o̔̀ katṓͅkisen e̓n ē̔mîn. James iv, 5.

   [250] Tou Kuríou ē̔mō̂n tē̂s dóxēs. James ii, 1.

   [251] Heōs tē̂s parousías toû Kuríou. James v, 7.

   [252] Neander's Introduction to his "Practical Exposition of the
   Epistle of James."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § III. Doctrinal Type of Peter. The First Two Gospels.

   While James regards the Gospel as the consecration of the law in an
   enlarged and spiritualized form, it specially commends itself to Peter
   as the fulfillment of prophecy. He thus comes closer to the heart of
   revelation, inasmuch as the prophecy of the Old Testament had much more
   direct reference than the law to Messiah and his work. Thus the person
   of Jesus Christ occupies a far larger place in the Epistle of Peter
   than in that of James. The position taken up by the Apostle is very
   clearly described in the first chapter of his epistle. Of this
   "salvation," he says, "the prophets inquired and searched diligently,
   who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what,
   or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did
   signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the
   glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto
   themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now
   reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you with
   the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." 1 Peter i, 10-12. If we collate
   these words with the first sermons of Peter, we shall find they take up
   the habitual theme of his preaching at Jerusalem; and if we remember
   further, that we are to seek the special doctrinal characteristic of
   the various sacred writers in the solution given by them to the
   question of the relation of the two covenants, we shall feel that we
   cannot attach too much importance to this passage of the Epistle of
   Peter. He affirms most explicitly the unity of the old and new
   covenants. The Spirit of Christ which lives in the Apostles was also
   the animating Spirit of the Prophets, who were the true forerunners of
   the Evangelists, since they foretold both the sufferings and the glory
   of Messiah. 1 Peter i, 1. True religion rises before his eyes like a
   vast and splendid temple—prophecy its foundation, the Gospel its
   top-stone. Supremely desirous to show the close bond which unites the
   two eras of revelation, he does not feel called upon to give at the
   same time prominence to the differences between them; in his letter we
   have, therefore, no trace of anti-Judaizing polemics. On the other
   hand, he moves in a sphere raised far above a narrow
   Judoeo-Christianity. The religion of Christ appears to him a full and
   glorious development of Judaism. For the exclusive choice of one nation
   there has been substituted the election of all the redeemed; national
   election has given place to moral election, which is not confined to
   the limits of Judæa, but extends to those who once were not the people
   of God. 1 Peter ii, 9, 10. To the special priesthood has succeeded the
   universal and royal priesthood of all who are Christ's. 1 Peter ii,
   5-7. The hope of the Church reaches far beyond the horizon of the
   theocracy. It is fixed no longer on an earthly inheritance, like the
   land of Canaan, it is changed into the lively hope of "an inheritance
   incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in
   heaven." 1 Peter i, 4. If the Apostle says nothing of the law, and of
   the preparatory part assigned to it, it cannot be justly argued that he
   is designedly silent, fearing to reawaken bitter disputations in the
   divided Churches. [253] He is silent on this point, simply because his
   great purpose is to bring out the harmonious relations of the two
   covenants rather than the differences between them.

   Peter is not, like James, satisfied with simple allusions to the person
   of Jesus Christ; he has not, however, the same broad and full
   conception as St. Paul of his nature and work. He does not go back
   beyond the ages to adore the eternal Son, in the bosom of the Father or
   ever the world was; though some divines have discerned an allusion to
   his preexistence in one expression in the first chapter. [254] He does
   not speak of Christ's part in creation. He does not go into any
   analysis of the work of redemption. He simply sets forth the fact
   without endeavoring to explain its mystery. There can be no ground for
   saying that he rejects the mystical interpretation given by Paul; he
   neither denies nor accepts it; he passes it by. His simple affirmation
   is, that Christ "bore our sins in his own body on the tree, and that by
   his stripes we are healed." 1 Peter ii, 24; iii, 18. In his writings,
   however, we find, though in a less dialectic and more popular form, all
   the elements of the doctrine of Paul with reference to the Lord Jesus
   Christ. Peter speaks of him as invested with divine honors. [255] It is
   by his precious blood that Christians are redeemed; the blood "as of a
   lamb without blemish, and without spot." 1 Peter i, 19. His
   resurrection was to them a being begotten again from the dead. 1 Peter
   i, 3. Of him and to him are all things in the present, the past, the
   future. 1 Peter i, 11; iv, 1; i, 4. Even in the dark abode of the dead
   the effects of his power and love have been felt. He went and preached
   unto the spirits in prison in the interval between his death and his
   resurrection. [256] The Apostle thus gives us a wonderful glimpse of a
   mysterious aspect of the work of redemption. Jesus Christ is set forth
   as the supreme object of faith. Peter does not enlarge upon the nature
   of faith any more than upon the nature of redemption. Here also he
   affirms the fact without explaining it; but the exalted manner in which
   he sets before Christians the example of the Saviour, (1 Peter ii, 21;
   iv, 1,) and beseeches them to bear his likeness, and sanctify him in
   their hearts, (1 Peter iii, 15,) shows that he did not intend by faith
   simply confidence in God, but that he comprehended it in its deepest
   sense—that of a real union with the Saviour. Speaking to Christians
   under persecution, and exposed to great trials, he constantly brings
   them into the presence of the cross of Christ; and if he does not
   expressly tell them, as does the author of the Epistle to the
   Colossians, to fill up the sufferings of Christ, his whole epistle
   breathes the same spirit. The sublime conclusion of the fourth chapter
   gives very convincing proof of this. We find, lastly, in Peter's
   writings, the same sentiments so tenaciously held by Paul as to the
   election and foreknowledge of God. 1 Peter i, 2; ii, 9. Such a
   conception is closely connected with his general view of God's
   workings. It was this divine foreknowledge which conceived in its unity
   the plan of salvation, and determined its successive developments from
   the earliest prophecies of the old covenant to its full consummation.

   We have more than once observed traces of the influence of Paul in the
   form of Peter's doctrinal teaching. No fact of the apostolic age
   appears to us more easy of explanation than the influence exercised by
   the great Apostle of the Gentiles. But if Peter reproduces some traits
   of Paul's doctrine he never surrenders his own individuality. There
   must be singular obtuseness of spiritual perception in those who see in
   his beautiful epistle only a copy, or a mosaic of Paul's teaching. The
   Spirit of God has set his seal on almost every word of this letter, so
   rich in consolation, and so well adapted to the Church militant in the
   hour of most sharp and deadly conflict.

   Having thus defined the doctrinal type of James and of Peter, we may at
   once recognize their impress in our first two Gospels. It is well known
   that Mark gives a summary of the preaching of Peter; this Gospel, so
   brief and graphic, presents us with the most vivid picture of the life
   of Christ. Written for the Church at Rome, it is marvelously adapted,
   in its condensed force and dramatic style, to the practical genius of
   the Latin race: Festinat ad res. It also corresponds very exactly to
   what we know of the doctrine of Peter. That Apostle, in his great
   desire to show that Christianity was the fulfillment of prophecy, was
   led to dwell mainly upon the facts of the Gospel history; he gave
   comparatively little attention to its speculative side. It was,
   therefore, natural that the Gospel written under his immediate
   influence should bear markedly and exclusively an historic character.

   The Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Palestine and in the Hebrew
   language, for the Jewish converts, reminds us of the doctrine both of
   James and of Peter. The new religion is there presented as a law more
   perfect than that given from Sinai. The Sermon on the Mount is the
   principal source from which James draws his conceptions of the
   permanence of moral obligation. On the other hand, Matthew seeks to
   establish, with scrupulous care, the relation of the Gospel history
   with ancient prophecy. He does not lose a single opportunity of giving
   prominence to this harmony, and he discerns it in the most minute
   details no less than in great and important facts. This is his one
   all-pervading thought, and it gives him a strong and perfectly distinct
   individuality.

   As a whole, the first two Gospels are no more favorable to
   Judæo-Christianity than are the epistles of James and of Peter. The
   high dignity of Messiah is recognized in the most explicit manner. His
   divinity is clearly asserted in such declarations as these: "All things
   are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the
   Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to
   whomsoever the Son will reveal him." [257] Jesus Christ himself is
   represented as the direct object of faith. Matt. x, 32, 37. The right
   of forgiving sins, which belongs to God only, is sovereignly exercised
   by him, as recorded by the first two Evangelists. Matt. ix, 6. What
   subordinate meaning can be attached to such words as these: "Lo, I am
   with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt. xxviii, 20. All
   the prophetic utterances concerning the glorious return of Christ are
   full of a declaration of his divinity; nor can these be justly regarded
   as in harmony only with the spirit of Judæo-Christianity, since they
   occupy, as we shall see, a large place in the doctrine of Paul. [258]
   The pretended opposition between the writings of the early Apostles and
   those of Paul vanishes before a close examination. The consideration,
   upon which we shall now enter, of the doctrine of the great Apostle,
   will yet more completely show the fallacy of this theory.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [253] Reuss, ii, 586.

   [254] Tò e̓n au̓toîs pneûma Christou. 1 Peter i, 11. It is a matter
   of question whether the Apostle here intends to speak of the agreement
   of the prophetic spirit with the Spirit of Christ, or of the sending
   forth of the Divine Spirit under the old covenant by the eternal Word.
   (See Schmid, "Biblisch. Theol.," ii, 184.)

   [255] Iēsou Christou, ō̔̂ͅ e̓stin ē̔ dóxa kaì tò krátos ei̓s toùs
   ai̓ō̂nas tō̂n ai̓ṓnōn. 1 Peter iv, 11. "To whom (Jesus Christ) be
   praise and dominion for ever and ever."

   [256] Tois e̓n phulakē pneúmasi poreutheìs e̓kḗruxen. 1 Peter iii,
   19, 20. We find it impossible to give any other meaning to this
   passage. It is easy to see the broad distinction between this apostolic
   doctrine and the idea of purgatory. Here there is no suggestion of a
   purification by suffering, but simply of a preaching of redemption to
   those who had never heard of Christ.

   [257] Matt. xi, 27. Comp. Matt. iii, 17; xiii, 41.

   [258] Reuss, ii, 58.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § IV. Doctrine of St. Paul. [259]

   Never did the connection between the thought and the life, the heart
   and the head, appear more manifestly than in the case of St. Paul. He
   is a remarkable illustration of the well-known saying, Pectus est quod
   facit theologum, it is the heart which makes the theologian. His
   theology sprang all living from his heart; it glowed with the fire that
   consumed him. His own moral life struggled for expression in his
   doctrine; and to give utterance to both at once, Paul created a
   marvelous language, rough and incorrect, but full of resource and
   invention, following his rapid leaps of thought, and bending to his
   sudden and sharp transitions. His ideas come in such rich abundance
   that they cannot wait for orderly expression; they throng upon each
   other, and intermingle in seeming confusion; but the confusion is
   seeming only, for through it all a powerful argument steadily sustains
   the mastery. The tongue of Paul is, indeed, a tongue of fire.

   The vocation of the Apostle of the Gentiles was to effect the final
   emancipation of the Church from the Synagogue; he did not, therefore,
   feel himself bound to use the same caution as Peter and James, in the
   transition from Judaism into Christianity. He did not unloose with a
   timid hand the knot of this question; he boldly cut it. While he taught
   substantially the same Gospel as St. James and St. Peter, he did not
   set himself, as they did, to exhibit exclusively the positive side of
   the new religion; he repudiated emphatically every thing that was alien
   to it. In great religious reforms the simple affirmation of truth is
   not enough; there must be the corresponding formal negation of error,
   so that no misconception may be possible. Paul, therefore, laid the ax
   to the root of the tree which was to fall—to the root of that narrow
   and impotent legalism, which had overspread the Church with its deadly
   shadow. We shall see, however, at the same time, that while Paul used
   argument as a sharp and unsparing weapon, he used it also as the
   plowshare, which cleaves the earth only to make it fruitful. Every one
   of his negations led to a richer affirmation; and as his polemics took
   a wider field, his theology became more and more enriched with new and
   important truths, which, under divine inspiration, he drew from the
   inexhaustible treasury of the teaching of Christ. This was the sole and
   sufficient source of all Paul's doctrine; as a whole and in all its
   parts, that doctrine corresponds perfectly to the teaching of the
   Master, of which it was the logical deduction and development.

   The theology of Paul has been repeatedly impoverished by the spirit of
   system, which has sought in it only the justification of its own
   dogmatic preferences. It has not been comprehended in its fullness in
   any of the creeds of the past. Between these formal creeds and the
   doctrine of Paul, there is as great a distance as between the testimony
   of the Apostles, and the always uncertain researches of human science.
   The Pauline doctrine is characterized by the marked predominance of the
   moral element. This is never lowered as in Pelagianism, which, in
   attempting to fit its morality to the measure of man, dwarfs it
   miserably, and takes away all its ideal character. But neither, on the
   other hand, does the doctrine of Paul merge the human in the divine as
   does Augustinism. It maintains the balance between grace and freedom;
   it boldly asserts both the one and the other, and thus guards against
   any exclusive tendency. The harmonious fusion of the moral and the
   religious element is in our view the distinctive feature of this
   theology, which thus fulfills, while it abolishes, the old covenant.
   Accepting the central idea of James—the permanence of moral obligation
   on the conscience under the new covenant—St. Paul sanctifies and
   vivifies it by his doctrine of justification by faith. Thus all the
   supposed contradictions disappear. There is no better method of
   demonstrating the fundamental agreement between St. Paul and St. James,
   than a just appreciation of the essentially moral character of Paul's
   religious teaching.

   The first principle in the doctrine of Paul is that of righteousness.
   Righteousness is the expression of the true relations which ought to
   subsist between the creature and the Creator. "Know ye not that the
   unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" 1 Cor. vi, 9. The
   new covenant has not abrogated this essential principle of all religion
   and morality. On the contrary, it has given it emphatic sanction; it
   has inaugurated the reign of true righteousness. [260] The moral
   principle is, therefore, the basis of both covenants. Every thing
   turns, every thing rests, upon it. Righteousness is not taken by Paul
   in an external and legal sense, as if it consisted simply in the
   fulfillment of certain precepts. It is founded on a universal law,
   graven in the heart of man by the hand of God himself. This law is
   written deep in the conscience, and is therefore found in the Gentile
   no less than in the Jew. [261] Righteousness, thus regarded, is not
   only the conformity of our will to certain commands of God; it consists
   in the conformity of our being to the being of God. Man is called to
   become an imitator of God. [262] This is the moral ideal, the epitome
   of duty in which all is comprehended.

   Starting from this deep conception of righteousness, St. Paul seeks its
   realization in religious history. He recognizes, first of all, the fact
   that humanity is in an abnormal condition, and that it has been plunged
   by an act of rebellion into sin and condemnation. He then endeavors to
   show in what way the fallen race is reinstated in righteousness; he is
   thus led to mark clearly the difference between the old covenant and
   the new, while he clearly indicates the preparatory value of the
   former. The fall, and the state of man since the first
   transgression—the Mosaic law and its design in Providence—redemption
   and its results—all these are successive chapters of the theology of
   Paul. We shall find him perpetually making all the various branches of
   his doctrine converge to the great idea of righteousness as the center
   and pivot of the whole.

   We are all familiar with Paul's forcible description of the general
   corruption of mankind. Taking as his text those words in the Psalms,
   "There is none righteous, no, not one," he draws with inimitable power
   the picture of the degradation of the fallen race. [263] In order to
   render it yet more striking, he borrows his colors from the corrupt
   state of society around him. The first portion of his Epistle to the
   Romans is devoted to an unsparing demonstration of the fallen state of
   humanity. On the one hand the Apostle shows us the pagan world,
   abandoned to impure and hateful lusts, dishonoring man by its
   abominations after having attempted to dishonor God by its idolatries,
   changing the truth of God into a lie; (Rom. i, 23-32;) on the other
   hand he attacks the unbelieving Jew, and holding over his head as a
   sword that very law in which he glories, he says, "Thou that makest thy
   boast of the law, by breaking the law dishonorest thou God?" Rom. ii,
   23. After this clear and concise declaration of the sins of the Jewish
   and Gentile world, Paul may fairly draw his conclusion as to the
   universality of sin. [264]

   This melancholy fact has its own natural and inevitable consequences.
   It is clear that if man had adhered to righteousness—that eternal and
   divine righteousness, which ought to regulate his relations with God—he
   would have found that happiness which is the fruit of righteousness.
   The perfect observance of the law of God results in a happy life. If
   all the works of man had been good—that is to say, if the whole of his
   moral life had been in conformity with the will of God—he would have
   been justified by his works. Righteousness would have been realized,
   and the harmony between the Creator and the creature maintained. Paul
   rejects justification by works, because the conditions of such
   justification have never been really fulfilled, and our boasted good
   works are still defiled by sin. [265]

   The violation of the law of God brought condemnation on all the
   children of men. They are all under the wrath of God; (Rom. ii, 5;)
   they have all come short of the glory of God. [266] All the
   consequences of sin are summed up in one word—death. This word
   undoubtedly points, in its primary significance, to the separation of
   the body and soul, and the destruction of the physical life; but it has
   a less restricted sense. It may be understood also of separation from
   God, and of the evils consequent on that separation; (1 Cor. xv, 21;)
   of the ruin wrought by sin in our nature—Man is "dead in trespasses and
   sins." [267]

   Are we to take this declaration of St. Paul in its strictest sense? Did
   he intend to say that every spark of the divine life was quenched in us
   by the fall? Did he teach the absolute corruption of human nature? We
   think not. Undoubtedly, as far as salvation is concerned, these words
   are to be taken in their fullest significance. Fallen man has no more
   power to save himself than a dead man to raise himself to life. The
   Apostle admits, however, that man still retains some traces of his
   original nature. He says, "When the Gentiles, which have not the law,
   do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the
   law, are a law unto themselves." They "show the work of the law written
   in their hearts." [268] In his discourse at Athens he speaks of the
   consciousness of the divine life as present in the unconverted man.
   "For we are also," he says, "his offspring." [269] The same conclusion
   may be drawn from the graphic representation given by the Apostle of
   the conflict which takes place in the heart before conversion—that
   painful struggle between the flesh and the spirit, which reveals the
   existence of the divine principle in powerful reaction against sin.
   Rom. vii, 14-24. But up to the moment when the grace of God gives
   deliverance the conflict always ends in the defeat of the higher
   principle. The natural man is the slave of sin, the slave of the law in
   the members—in one word, the slave of the flesh. Rom. vii, 23.

   This does not imply that the body is the seat and principle of evil. By
   such a doctrine Paul would have sanctioned by anticipation Manichæism
   and all the dualistic theories of the ancient world. Instead of
   opposing, as he did, oriental asceticism, he would have favored and
   commended it. Col. ii, 20-23; 1 Tim. iv, 8; Rom. xiv, 6. His conception
   of righteousness is too broad and deep to permit him to identify the
   principle of evil with the corporeal principle. He is, further, careful
   to guard against any misconception by numbering among the works of the
   flesh such sins as hatred, variance, envyings, which clearly have no
   connection with sensuality. Gal. v, 10-21; 1 Cor. iii, 3. The
   opposition between the flesh and the Spirit is not so much between the
   material and the spiritual part of the nature of man, as between the
   lower or earthly and the higher or heavenly element in the soul. [270]
   The lower or earthly element predominates in the unconverted man,
   though even in him may be found some vestiges of the higher life. Rom.
   viii, 17. This predominance of the lower element causes the gravest
   perturbations in our nature, and leads almost of necessity to the
   bondage of the soul to the body. This is the most striking and
   universal evidence of the fall, the commonest manifestation of sin. The
   Apostle is, therefore, justified in characterizing it by that which may
   be regarded as its most palpable feature, and in calling the law of sin
   the law in our members." [271] Evil is not an accidental and isolated
   fact in our life; it has become a tendency, an inclination, a law.

   We shall be yet more convinced that it is impossible to accuse Paul of
   dualism if we consider the solution which he gives of the tremendous
   question of the origin of evil. It was, according to him, the rebellion
   of the first man which introduced evil into the world; in other words,
   the principle of evil must be sought not in the body but in the will.
   Sin is a free act; it in no way bears the character of a physical
   necessity. It is the breaking of the normal bond between' the creature
   and the Creator. [272] St. Paul gives no explanation of the mode of the
   transmission of sin; he contents himself with pointing out how the
   powers of evil have been let loose upon mankind. It would be impossible
   to derive from his words a complete theory of original sin; he does no
   more than affirm the universality of the condemnation, and the
   universality of the sin introduced into the world by the first
   transgression. [273]

   After having thus demonstrated that the whole race of Adam is exposed
   to the wrath of God on account of his unfulfilled law, the Apostle
   draws in broad outline the history of the work of salvation. He has set
   aside all the claims of Judaism to occupy a place apart in the midst of
   the general condemnation. By exploding all the pretensions of human
   pride, and destroying all its false titles to the favor of God, he has
   cleared the ground; and he may now triumphantly establish the doctrine
   of free salvation, which is, in his view, the very essence of
   Christianity.

   A race so deeply fallen can only be raised again by free grace. From
   before the creation of the world God conceived the plan of salvation;
   [274] from all eternity it was determined in the counsels of his mercy.
   This is the secret, the mystery of his gracious will. [275] The first
   cause of salvation is, then, the sovereign freedom of God. It rests
   upon an act of his good pleasure; its principle is the everlasting love
   of the Father, which embraces not one peculiar people, but the whole of
   humanity, the Gentile nations no less than the Jews. This glorious
   mystery was, however, only revealed in the last times. [276]

   The creation of the world was the first manifestation of the eternal
   and infinite love. It was, in truth, by the Son of God, who is the
   highest personification of love, that all things both in heaven and
   earth were created. "By him and for him were all things." [277]
   Redemption is only the restoration of the primitive design of creation,
   the reparation of the confusion wrought by sin, the bringing in again
   of true righteousness. All that was comprehended in the plan of
   creation found a place afresh in the plan of redemption. It was the
   good pleasure of the Father to reconcile all things through him, by
   whom and for whom all had been created. [278]

   This eternal decree of divine love has been taken by many distinguished
   theologians in a sense so narrow as to exclude altogether the moral
   principle; they have only escaped pantheism by a happy inconsistency,
   occasioned by their deep piety and their sincere desire to guard the
   rights of God against the assumptions of human pride. We hold, however,
   that their system finds no sanction in the theology of Paul. There is a
   vast difference between Augustinian predestination and the
   predestination spoken of by St. Paul. According to Augustine, God in
   his sovereignty has decreed the salvation of a small fraction of
   mankind. Calvin adds, that on the same ground he has decreed the
   eternal perdition of the rest of the race. We find nothing
   corresponding to this in the writings of Paul. According to him,
   salvation proceeds from a decree of sovereign love; it is thus a matter
   of predestination—that is, it has, as its first cause, the all-powerful
   will of God. It is a generous and free gift. Divine love precedes,
   therefore, any act of ours; it does not originate in any human merit;
   it has no other spring than the infinite compassion of God. God loved
   man, not because of his actual excellence or possible merits, but
   because he was pleased thus to love him. It is in this sense that man
   is predestinated to happiness. Thus the salvation comes "neither of him
   that willeth, nor of him that runneth." Rom. ix, 16. It is neither a
   recompense nor an exchange, for then its whole order and principle
   would be inverted; it would proceed from the creature and not from the
   Creator. It is a gift of free grace; but it is none the less in harmony
   with the laws of divine righteousness; they even receive in its
   realization a new and more sacred seal.

   St. Paul does not regard salvation simply in an abstract and general
   manner; he insists on its individual application. The salvation of
   every man, as of the race, has its origin in the eternal love of God,
   and not in human merit. It is only realized, however, under certain
   conditions inseparable from the conception of righteousness, which is
   always kept inviolate in the theology of the Apostle. The eye of God—to
   which all futurity is open, as are the secrets of all hearts, and with
   whom there is no time—sees from all eternity the unfolding and complete
   development of every individual life. Election is nothing else than
   this eternal foreknowledge of God, embracing the destiny of every man,
   and discerning the part which every man will take with reference to
   salvation; or, to be more exact, it is the application of the decree of
   infinite love to every soul which has not obstinately rejected mercy.
   The initiative in the reconciliation ever belongs to God; it always
   flows from his eternal purpose of mercy, and it is impossible to find a
   shadow of merit in the creature, whose part it is simply to suffer
   himself to be saved. The very word election sets aside the idea of any
   thing arbitrary in the salvation of the individual, for it implies a
   choice, and an intelligent choice.

   Against this interpretation of the idea of the Apostle, the famous
   ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is adduced; but it is a
   violation of all the rules of sound exegesis to isolate one portion of
   Scripture and to endeavor to explain the whole Bible by one page,
   instead of explaining that page by all the rest. Let us observe, in the
   first place, that in that chapter the Apostle is speaking not of the
   election of individuals but of nations. His design is to oppose the
   Jewish notion that a national election creates for a people an
   inalienable and permanent claim to salvation; and he appeals, in
   controversion of this prejudice, to the free grace of God. Rom. ix, 11.
   The proposition thus sustained by the Apostle is the great principle of
   Christianity. At the close of the chapter, instead of entering into a
   metaphysical discussion, he silences all objections by invoking the
   absolute sovereignty of God: "O man, who art thou that repliest against
   God?" He crushes his imagined opponent by thus directly bringing him
   into the presence of that supreme power on which man is absolutely
   dependent. His position is unassailable even on the limited ground thus
   voluntarily assumed by him; but is there no broader ground in his
   theology? Has he not shown in the passage already quoted that this
   supreme power is at the same time supreme love? Has he not declared
   that God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself by Jesus
   Christ? Why should the one statement be sacrificed to the other? Why
   should not the one explain and complete the other? In the ninth chapter
   of the Romans, Paul follows the legitimate method employed in all
   discussions; he says to his adversaries, "Even admitting that God is
   only sovereign power, your mouth is still shut." But he has told us
   elsewhere what is this sovereign power, and violence is done to his
   doctrine if it is accepted only in part. Unquestionably man, regarded
   as a frail creature and compared with the omnipotent Creator, is but as
   the earthen vessel before the potter who has fashioned it. But Paul has
   told us what precious treasure is contained in that earthen vessel; he
   has shown us the divine spark within. This vessel of clay is a being
   created in the image of God, endowed with liberty, called to holiness.
   Therefore, to save that which he has so made, God shakes the heavens
   and the earth. Those who find the whole Gospel in some impassioned turn
   in the dialectics of St. Paul, or in some bold but incomplete image,
   misconceive the moral beauty and the depth of his doctrine; they
   overturn all the fundamental ideas of conscience, and deprive
   Christianity of its true basis and point of contact in ourselves. The
   best means of refuting any such partial notions is to retrace with the
   Apostle the successive developments of God's plan in the world. Such a
   careful examination will give emphatic evidence that the clay out of
   which was wrought this frail vessel called man was not simply borrowed
   from the lower world and kept in subjection to the inflexible laws of
   nature.

   The work of restoration begins immediately after the fall. It is
   divided into two great periods. The first, which extends to the coming
   of Christ, is the time of God's patience. The world is under sentence
   of condemnation; but judgment is not fully executed, because God will
   give sinners space for repentance; [279] he subjects the fallen race to
   a gradual education to prepare it to receive the Saviour. This
   education was not the same for the Jews as for the Gentile nations. The
   former were intrusted with the great privilege of being the
   depositaries of the oracles of God. [280] They received a positive
   revelation; but, although divine, this revelation was not absolute and
   final in its character. Its one design was to prepare the way for the
   Redeemer. The Apostle notes two distinct periods in the history of
   Judaism—the patriarchal period and the Mosaic. In the former, a divine
   sanction had been by anticipation given to the constituent principles
   of the new covenant. In fact, the promise of salvation preceded the
   law, and Abraham was justified by faith in that promise. Rom. iv,
   15-22; Gal. iii, 16-27. The law was only brought in by Moses. It was
   enough, therefore, in order to set aside legalism, to go back to the
   sources of Judaism, in which a divine seal was attached to
   justification by faith and free salvation.

   It is impossible not to admire the broad grasp which the Apostle takes
   of the intention and significance of the Mosaic dispensation. In that
   very law, so strenuously urged against him, he finds fresh proof of the
   necessity of Christianity. He shows that it has been the most active
   agent in fostering the desire for salvation, and he fully recognizes
   its divine authority; so far from depreciating it, as the Gnostics
   subsequently do, he lauds and magnifies it. "The law is holy, and the
   commandment holy, just, and good." [281] But, if it is holy, it is at
   the same time terrible, for it demands nothing less than absolute
   obedience on the part of man. "Cursed is every one that continueth not
   in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
   Gal. iii, 10. This character of awfulness was necessary that it might
   accomplish its great mission in the work of preparation. It proclaims
   commands and thunders threatenings, but it communicates no moral
   strength to man. [282] It places him, impotent and awe-struck, in the
   presence of the holy God. If, on the one hand, it is a restraint on
   evil, preventing its excess, on the other, it is also a goad, urging
   into activity the desire of sin. This it excites and develops; it
   removes from sin its character of ignorance, and constrains it to an
   open avowal of itself; placed face to face with sin, the law shows it
   to be what really it is, a positive transgression of the will of God;
   by the law sin becomes exceeding sinful. [283] Thus it gives rise to
   terrible conflicts in the heart, and fills man with deep distress;
   thetlaw overwhelms the sinner, humbles him, lays him low in the dust,
   wrings from him a cry of anguish, which is the strongest expression of
   the need of redemption. Let us remember that, according to the doctrine
   of Paul, the law has not annulled the promise. [284] The promise still
   rises above the threatenings of the law, and saves man from despair; it
   directs his prayer toward God and the more he is crushed under the law,
   the more is he accessible to the consolations of the promise. So far,
   therefore, from being in antagonism to the covenant of grace, the law
   is the schoolmaster to bring man to Christ. [285] In these few words,
   by what might be called a stroke of genius, (if it were not traceable
   to a higher inspiration than that of any mere human intellect,) the
   Apostle epitomizes his profound views of the law. The whole of the
   Mosaic dispensation was thus admirably adapted to nourish the desire
   for salvation.

   The work of preparation was not confined to the Jewish people. We find
   traces of it also, according to St. Paul, in the history of the Gentile
   nations. To them God spoke by the voice of nature, (Rom. i, 18-21,) and
   by the voice of conscience. Rom. ii, 14, 15. The law written in the
   human heart was the schoolmaster to bring them also to Christ—one
   invested with less authority than the law of Moses, because of the
   darkening of the moral sense in man, but exerting, nevertheless, a very
   decided influence. In his discourse to the Athenians, Paul declares
   that God has "determined for all nations of men the times before
   appointed and the bounds of their habitation." [286] It follows, that
   he rules over their destinies and directs the events of their history;
   and, as his purpose is the same for all sections of humanity, he seeks
   to make the Gentiles, no less than the Jews, conscious of the need of
   redemption. He uses, however, means altogether different in the two
   cases. While, among the Jews, their desire after salvation was fostered
   by direct revelations, it was awakened among pagan nations by the
   absence of revelation. It was the will of God that these should feel
   after him for themselves, that they might prove, from their own
   experience, whether thus groping after him they could "haply find him."
   [287] The Gentiles were brought by these prolonged and fruitless
   efforts to a consciousness of their own impotence; and they admitted,
   by erecting an altar to the unknown God, how unavailing had been all
   their endeavors. For them then, as for the Jews, the fullness of time
   had come, and preparation having thus been made, the purpose of God had
   only to receive its fulfillment by the coming of Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [259] Besides the works on Biblical theology already mentioned, we
   direct attention to the monograph of Usteri, entitled "Entwicklung des
   Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs." The author may be accused of having made
   St. Paul far too much resemble Schleiermacher. His great merit is that
   of having made the first attempt to present a complete view of Paul's
   doctrine.

   [260] Nunì dè chōrìs nómou dikaiosúnē theou pephanérōtai. Rom.
   iii, 21.

   [261] "They show the work of the law written in their hearts."
   Oi̔́tines e̓ndeíknuntai tò e̓́rgon toû nómou graptòn e̓n tais
   kardíais au̓tōn. Rom. ii, 14, 15.

   [262] Gínesthe ou̓̂n mimētaì tou theou. Ephes. v, 1. This precept is
   addressed to Christians, but it is evident that the moral ideal thus
   set before them is the moral ideal in itself.

   [263] Ou̓k e̓́stin díkaios ou̓dè ei̔̂s. Rom. iii, 10.

   [264] Pántes gàr ē̔́marton. Rom. iii, 23.

   [265] Paul, in his theory of justification by faith, always assumes our
   sinful condition. It is in our actual state of sin that we have need of
   pardon.

   [266] Husterountai tēs dóxēs tou theou. Rom. iii, 23.

   [267] Humâs o̓́ntas nekroùs tois paraptṓmasi kaì tais a̔martíais.
   Ephesians ii, 1.

   [268] Hotan gàr e̓́thnē tà mḕ nómon e̓́chonta phúsei tà tou
   nómou poiē, . . . e̔autoîs ei̓sin nómos. Rom. ii, 14.

   [269] Tou gàr kaì génos e̓smén. Acts xvii, 28.

   [270] This is the distinction between the psuchē and the pneuma. 1 Cor.
   ii, 14, 15.

   [271] Heteron nómon e̓n tois mélesín mou. Rom. vii, 23.

   [272] The first sin is a transgression: parabaois, a disobedience;
   therefore a moral fact.

   [273] The famous passage, (Rom. v, 12-15,) e̓ph' hō pántes ē̔́marton,
   was long translated, under the influence of Augustinism, in whom (Adam)
   all have sinned. This interpretation, which does violence to the
   grammar, is now almost universally abandoned. The true sense is this:
   Death has passed upon all men, because all have sinned. St. Paul adds,
   that the transgression of Adam brought that of his descendants; but he
   is content with the general statement of the fact. He does not say that
   the sin of Adam was imputed before it had been committed.

   [274] Prò katabolē̂s kósmou. Eph. i, 4.

   [275] Tò mustḗrion tou thelḗmatos au̓tou katà tḕn eu̓dokían
   au̓tou. Eph. i, 9.

   [276] En tō̂ͅ mustēríōͅ tou Christou, . . . einai tà e̓́thnē
   sunklēronóma. Eph. iii, 4, 6.

   [277] Tà pánta di' au̓tou kaì ei̓s au̓tòn e̓́ktistai. Col. i, 16.

   [278] Di' au̓tou a̓pokatalláxai tà pánta ei̓s au̓tón. Col. i, 20.

   [279] En tē̂ͅ a̓nochē tou Theou. Rom. iii, 25.

   [280] Episteúthēsan tà lógia tou Theou. Rom. iii, 2.

   [281] Ho mèn nómos a̔́gios kaì ē̔ e̓ntolḕ a̔gía. Rom. vii, 12.

   [282] "It was weak through the flesh." Rom. viii, 3.

   [283] "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all
   manner of concupiscence, for without the law sin was dead." Rom. vii,
   8.

   [284] "And this I say, that the covenant which was confirmed before of
   God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,
   cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Gal.
   iii, 17.

   [285] Hōste o̔ nómos paidagōgòs ē̔mō̂n gégonen ei̓s Christón. Gal.
   iii. 24.

   [286] Horísas prostetagménous kairous kaì tàs o̔rothesías tēs
   katoikías au̓tōn. Acts xvii, 26.

   [287] Zētein tòn Theon, ei̓ a̓́rage psēlaphḗseian au̓tòn kaì
   eu̔́roien. Acts xvii, 27.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § V. God "spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all."
   [288]

   The whole work of redemption is summed up in these words. They testify
   that it is in its very essence a manifestation of the love of the
   Father, of that eternal love which formed the design of saving us, and
   of renewing us in true righteousness. Before describing the work of
   Christ, Paul is very explicit as to its nature. We have already said
   that he recognizes the eternal existence of the Son of God, "the image
   of the invisible God, by whom and for whom all things were created, who
   was before all things, and by whom all things consist." [289] This
   Eternal Son took upon him a body like our own. Being in the form of
   God, not having to win by conquest a Godhead which was already his by
   right, he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, and being
   found in fashion as a man. [290] In this state of humiliation, or
   rather of self-annihilation, there still dwelt in him "all the fullness
   of the Godhead bodily." Col. ii, 9. Thus the Apostle unhesitatingly
   applies to him the title of God; he calls him "God over all, blessed
   for ever." [291] While thus recognizing the divinity of Christ, the
   Apostle admits, however, a certain subordination of the Son to the
   Father. This cannot, in our view, be restricted to the time of his
   manifestation upon earth, and be supposed to originate solely in his
   temporary abasement, since Paul declares that in the end of time, that
   is, when the Son shall have reassumed all his glory, he will even then
   himself be subject unto God, that God may be all in all. [292] Is not
   this subordination implied in the very name of the Son, the image of
   the Father, and the brightness of his glory? From all eternity he has
   received all the fullness of the Godhead, but still he has received it.
   Now, he who receives is subordinate to Him who gives; his subordination
   to the Father may have been more marked in the days of his humiliation;
   nevertheless, it subsisted before all time, and will subsist when time
   shall be no more.

   St. Paul speaks no less clearly with reference to the humanity than to
   the deity of Christ. If he is declared to be the Son of God according
   to the Spirit, he is no less the seed of David according to the flesh.
   [293] God sent his own Son in flesh like that of sinful men, [294] that
   is to say, in all the frailty and feebleness of earthly life, to suffer
   and to die.2 Cor. xiii, 4; i, 5; Phil. ii, 8.

   But Christ did more than simply assume human nature; he became the head
   of a new humanity, and its representative before God. Paul establishes
   a parallel between the first Adam and him whom he calls the second
   Adam. "If by the offense of one," he says, "many be dead, much more the
   grace of God, and the gift which he hath given us by his grace, of one
   man, shall abound unto many." Rom. v, 15. Thus, the second Adam comes
   to repair the wrongs done by the first. Between him and man there is a
   bond of strict solidarity. The difference between the first Adam and
   the second does not consist simply in this, that the first Adam brought
   sin and condemnation upon earth, while the second Adam wrought the
   world's redemption. "The first Adam was made a living soul, but the
   last Adam is a quickening spirit." [295] In other words, the second
   Adam possesses in himself the creating spirit which gives and sustains
   life. He is able, therefore, to restore life to those who have lost it,
   and to kindle a new and living flame in the cold hearts of a condemned
   race. It remains for us to see in what way he restored the true
   relations between man and God, which are those of perfect
   righteousness.

   Redemption is not, with Paul, simply the declaration of the love of God
   and of his pardon; it is a positive work, a great and bleeding
   sacrifice. Jesus Christ "was delivered for our offenses." [296] It is
   clear from the epistles of the Apostle that the death of Christ is the
   basis of our salvation, that his blood was shed for us, and that his
   sufferings have effected our reconciliation with God. "I have
   determined," he says emphatically, "to know nothing among you save
   Jesus Christ and him crucified." 1 Cor. ii, 2. In order to understand
   the close relation which he establishes between the sufferings of
   Christ and the work of redemption, it must be remembered that the cause
   of man's ruin was the transgression of the first man. "By one man sin
   entered into the world." "By the disobedience of one many were made
   sinners." Rom. v, 12-19. Sin has thus interrupted the normal relations
   between man and God; it is needful that these should be restored. Now,
   of these true relations obedience is the essence. It is therefore
   necessary that the representative of the new race should present it
   prostrate before God in unreserved submission, and should thus cancel
   the effects of Adam's rebellion. The redemptive act is essentially one
   of obedience. "It is by the righteousness of one that all shall receive
   the righteousness which gives life." [297] The death of Christ being a
   proof of absolute obedience is the supreme reparation of the rebellion
   of Adam. The second Adam saves us because he was "obedient unto death,
   even the death of the cross." [298] Thus is the harmony re-established
   between man and God. But while the discord of the moral world was thus
   resolved by the second Adam, the condemnation resulting from sin was as
   effectually removed by him. Here it is that his suffering becomes so
   important an element in his work. Death had been the consequence of
   sin. "By sin death entered into the world." Rom. v, 12. In the language
   of Scripture death is the wages of sin, [299] the terrible sanction
   attached to the law of God, the solemn vindication of his disregarded
   authority. Christ, in submitting to death, submitted to the conditions
   under which humanity had placed itself by sin; he thus became its true
   representative. By dying for us he was made a curse for us; he was made
   sin, for, in so far as it was possible for a sinless being, he endured
   the penalty of sin. "He who knew no sin was for our sake treated by God
   as a sinner, that by him we might be made righteous before God." [300]

   This death, being undeserved, was on his part a free sacrifice, and an
   act of obedience; hence, its redemptive value. In making his death an
   offering to God, an act of free and holy love, Christ reunited the
   broken link between man and God; his death thus produced life and
   salvation. He, the Holy One and the Just, received the wages of
   transgression, but he yielded himself to death only to extract its
   sting, which is sin; by dying he gained the mightiest of victories over
   the powers of evil. He took upon him our condemnation; but, so assuming
   it, he transformed and subdued it. "He condemned sin in the flesh."
   [301] The righteousness of God is written in letters of blazing light
   upon his cross, since, having come down to. our sin-stained earth and
   joined himself to the human race, he must needs die in spite of his
   holiness. That holiness, however, at the same time made his death a
   satisfaction of the divine justice—a reparation of Adam's disobedience.

   After a careful study of the declarations of St. Paul, we find
   ourselves unable to derive from them any other conception of redemption
   than this The death of Christ is a demonstration of the righteousness
   of God, since it gives proof that the representative of the sentenced
   race of man cannot save it without submitting to the penalty of sin;
   but the penalty thus endured is accepted by God as a sufficient
   reparation, because of the perfect obedience which it manifests. It is
   in this sense a redemption, a propitiation; this is the entire theory
   of Paul. Theology may find some links wanting in this dialectic chain;
   it may attempt to explain and to enlarge upon the great doctrinal
   statements of the Apostle, but it has no right either to suppress or to
   add any. The judicial theory, according to which the suffering of
   Christ consisted in the feeling of rejection and of the wrath of God,
   is altogether alien to the conception of Paul. [302] He always
   represents the Father as acting in harmony with the Son. "God," he
   says, "was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." [303] If he
   was in Christ he could not be against him. The judicial theory of
   Anselm is in contradiction with the general views of Paul on salvation.
   In Anselm's system it is no longer free grace, a realization in time of
   the purpose of eternal love. The law of retaliation receives, on this
   theory, the supreme sanction of the cross; forgiveness is robbed of its
   freeness. We are on the ground of legal right, not on that of mercy. It
   is, further, an erroneous conception of the work of redemption which
   disjoins the death of the Saviour from his life; the two are closely
   connected—the former the consummation of the latter. If he was obedient
   unto death, he was not obedient only in death. If He who knew no sin
   was treated as a sinner in the crucifixion, so was he no less in all
   the sufferings going before his death, and his death appears to us as
   the culminating point of the redemptive work which comprehends his
   whole life on earth. [304]

   The salvation achieved on the cross is consummated by the glorification
   of the Redeemer. The resurrection is, in Paul's view, an essential
   condition of our justification. [305] "If Christ be not risen, then is
   our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." 1 Cor. xv, 14. Such
   is his argument. The resurrection is, in truth, the divine pledge of
   the acceptance of the redeeming sacrifice. The risen Christ has entered
   into glory; he is now at the right hand of God the Father, and he
   carries on his redeeming work by bestowing mediatorily upon us all the
   graces gained by his death. Rom. xiv, 9; Phil. ii, 11. The grace which
   comprises all the rest is the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of
   the living God, which is also the Spirit of Christ. [306] The Spirit is
   sent by the Saviour to his Church by virtue of his death, which has
   made an open way of access to the Father, casting down every obstacle
   and barrier between us and him. Ephes. ii, 18. This Spirit is the
   "Spirit of adoption," (Gal. iv, 6; Rom. viii, 15;) the great agent in
   conversion and sanctification. It is he who quickens us, (Ephes. ii,
   5,) by him it is we receive power and might from God, (Phil. ii, 13;)
   it is he, in a word, who helps all our infirmities. Rom. viii, 26. True
   righteousness is restored by the new Adam; but we have yet to ascertain
   how sinful man may become a partaker in it—in other words, how he may
   be justified. Paul's reply is included in a single word: "The just
   shall live by faith." [307] Let us examine more closely this ideal of
   justification, for it is that which attaches the special seal of
   originality to the doctrine of Paul. To justify, is, with him, to
   declare to be just. Rom. ii, 13; iii, 24; Gal. ii, 16. This declaration
   may be made either as a matter of law or of grace. As a matter of law,
   it can be obtained only by perfect righteousness. As a matter of grace,
   it is a gift of God, and may be bestowed on the sinner. [308] But if
   justification is gratuitous, it is not unconditional; it is granted
   only to faith, and we find here the moral element which permeates the
   whole theology of the Apostle. Rightly to understand what he intends by
   faith, it is necessary to inquire what is its origin, its nature, its
   object. Its origin is twofold, according as we regard it in eternity or
   in time. In eternity it originates, as does the whole of salvation, in
   the decree of eternal love, that is, in election, of which we have
   already defined the significance and bearing. Every Christian has been
   the object of God's love from all eternity, and the cause of his
   salvation is not in himself, but in the will of the Father. [309] In
   time, faith is necessarily preceded by the divine call: "Faith cometh
   by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." [310] But it is only
   produced in the heart by the Holy Spirit. It "is the gift of God."
   [311] We must not, however, for a moment entertain the idea of any
   magical operation upon man without the participation of his own moral
   power. A consideration of the nature and object of faith will suffice
   to exclude any such idea. Faith commences by the drawing of the Spirit,
   a belief in the promises of God, a knowledge of the truth, (2 Cor. v,
   7;) it is in this sense a firm and joyful confidence, to which
   Christian experience bears most distinct testimony; (2 Cor. iv, 12,
   13;) it rests on the assurance that God has forgiven us in his Son. But
   it does not stop there; in the language of the Apostle it has a deep
   and mystical meaning. Faith establishes between us and the Saviour a
   real and mysterious union, which makes him dwell in our hearts by
   faith, which keeps us rooted and grounded in him, [312] and enables us
   to say: "It is no more I that live, but Christ who liveth in me." The
   commencement of the sixth chapter to the Romans shows us Paul's view of
   this subject. He sees in the act of baptism a true representation of
   faith. As in baptism the neophyte is plunged beneath the water, soon to
   come forth again bearing the seal of consecration; so the soul which
   embraces salvation is buried, at it were, in the death of Christ, and
   at once rises, again with him into newness of life. It has grown to be
   one with him in his death and resurrection. [313] To believe is then to
   be closely united to Christ, by dying to ourselves, and becoming
   partakers of his divine life. This does not imply that we may not be
   assured of our salvation until this union with Christ is complete. No,
   his righteousness covers us before God so soon as we have accepted the
   pardon it has procured; but on the other hand, this acceptance is only
   real when a bond is formed between our souls and him; when we have
   begun to die and to live again with him; when we have been engrafted
   into his death and resurrection. We are not justified by the works of
   the law, but by the work of Christ, inwrought in our hearts by a living
   and sanctifying faith. Our whole salvation is of grace, and yet God, in
   order to save us, makes a powerful appeal to the living forces of our
   moral being. He consents to accept the appropriation of the work of
   redemption wrought by faith in our hearts, however imperfect it may be,
   if it be but in reality begun. Thus the very condition imposed upon us
   is itself an effect of his love, and a proof of the freeness of his
   gifts. [314]

   The natural consequence of faith is conversion, or the renewing of the
   inner nature. Thus understood, it is inseparable from sanctification.
   If St. Paul repudiates strongly justification by works, he does so
   because the works of the law do not truly realize the righteousness of
   God, but either cherish pride or lead to despair. Holiness springs from
   faith; faith contains it in the germ, for sanctification consists
   simply in putting on Jesus Christ as sin is more and more put off.
   Self-mortification pierces the rebellious flesh of the Christian, as it
   were with the nails which wounded the Saviour on the accursed tree; it
   is a true crucifixion, [315] and like that of the Redeemer, it leads to
   a resurrection. The new man, created in the image of God, takes the
   place of the old, and is changed from glory to glory into the likeness
   of Christ. The ideal and the end of holiness is to be able to say, "For
   me to live is Christ." Phil. i, 21. We know with what strong and solemn
   eloquence Paul incites Christians to seek this salutary death and
   blessed resurrection, urging them to identify themselves with that
   Saviour whose life he himself manifested, and the mark of whose wounds
   he rejoiced to bear. This is indeed the highest morality; that which
   comes down from above, which finds its law in the heart of the God who
   is love, and reads it written afresh in characters of blood upon the
   cross. Love is its Alpha and Omega. "Be ye imitators of God;" [316]
   this is its principle. "The love of Christ constrains us: if one is
   dead, all are dead;" (2 Cor. v, 14;) this is its motive. "The grace of
   our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit; " (Gal. vi, 18;) this is its
   power. It is as efficacious as it is perfect; for the love which is its
   supreme ideal is communicated as it is revealed. Paul has celebrated
   this love in language truly sublime. No poetry can surpass his paean on
   charity. We feel that this is the highest attainment possible even to
   inspired human thought, for love in man, responding to the eternal love
   of God, is the glorious re-establishment of righteousness upon earth;
   it is restoration perfected, salvation realized.

   The Apostle, however, goes further than a merely individual
   appropriation of salvation. It being the purpose of God to reconstitute
   a true humanity in Christ, it was necessary that a new people of God
   should be formed, and a religious society organized, in which faith and
   love should be essential elements of the mutual relations between men.
   This new people of God is the Church. Paul compares it sometimes to a
   temple of which Christ is the corner-stone; (1 Cor. iii, 16, 17; 2 Cor.
   vi, 16; Ephes. ii, 20, 22;) sometimes to a body of which he is the
   head. Rom. xii, 5; 1 Cor. xii, 12; Ephes. i, 23. It thus forms a living
   organism, a holy community, differing widely from such an institution
   as was the Jewish theocracy. It is entered, not by birth, but by faith;
   all external distinctions are thus abolished. Here there is "neither
   Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian,
   bond nor free, but Christ is all in all." [317] The Apostle recognizes
   in all his letters that the Churches to which he writes present a
   melancholy admixture of good and evil; but he urges upon them as a duty
   to purify themselves from all the corrupt elements which defile and
   bring dishonor upon them. 1 Cor. v, 11-13. The sign of admission into
   the Church is baptism, which symbolizes the two phases of conversion,
   and thus is no less significant of death unto sin than of the new life
   to which the Christian is called. Rom. vi, 4. The holy communion is the
   Lord's Supper, taken in remembrance of his redeeming death. 1 Cor. xi,
   25. It draws closer the bonds of brotherhood, for by it all the members
   of the Church drink of the same cup of blessing. 1 Cor. x, 16, 17. It
   is at once the solemn symbol of the divine love, and the pledge of
   Christian oneness. The Church, the holy community of the redeemed of
   Christ, whose calling it is to strive against sin and to fulfill the
   law of love, represents to us humanity as it is to be formed anew
   according to the will of God. It is thus the fulfillment of Him who
   fulfills all in us all [318] —the fulfillment, that is, of that eternal
   purpose of divine love which was frustrated in the fall and is realized
   in redemption.

   But the kingdom of God extends far beyond this world. The family is in
   heaven as well as upon earth. Ephes. iii, 15. The angels form, with the
   redeemed, the heavenly host of which Christ is the Captain, (Col. ii,
   10; Ephes. i, 20, 21; iii, 10,) which is perpetually at war with the
   dark kingdom of evil, with the malignant spirits of the air sent forth
   on the behests of the prince of this world. Ephes. ii, 2; vi, 12;2 Cor.
   iv, 4. These powers of darkness, though vanquished at the cross of
   Christ, (Col. ii, 15,) continue to fight against the Church, but they
   are doomed to inevitable defeat. 1 Cor. xv, 24-26.

   We shall not dwell at length upon the picture drawn by St. Paul of the
   last times. He has not done more than paraphrase the prophecies given
   by Christ. He proclaims a wide diffusion of the Gospel light, which is
   to spread first over the Gentile world, then to return to enlighten
   also that people of the Jews, who will have thus so strikingly verified
   in their pride the saying of the Master, "The first shall be last."
   Even this tardy illumination is to come to them only on condition that
   they abide not still in unbelief.* Rom. xi, 23-25. The prophecy being
   that the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the truth as
   the waters cover the sea, the country which was the cradle of
   revelation cannot remain forever in darkness. The grief of a temporary
   rejection, and the privileges granted to the Gentile world, will in the
   end stir up Israel to jealousy, and bring it back to God. Rom. xi, 31.

   When the Gospel shall have thus subdued the obduracy of the Jews its
   final triumph will be at hand, and the conversion of Israel will be the
   precursive sign of the glorious consummation of the kingdom of God.
   Rom. xi, 15. Before this, however, a terrible conflict will take place
   between the Church and Antichrist personified in the " man of sin;" (2
   Thess. ii, 3-8;) and the close of this conflict will be the return of
   Christ in the clouds to judge the world, and to raise the dead. 1
   Thess. iv, 14-18. He is himself the first-fruits of the resurrection;
   we shall be made like him. Our body, like the grain of corn which dies
   in the ground to live again as the golden ear, shall be raised glorious
   and incorruptible. 1 Cor. xv, 42-45. The Christians who shall be living
   at the coming of the Lord shall be changed without dying. [319] The
   judgment will follow immediately on the resurrection; it is spoken of
   as the great day of the Lord.2 Cor. v, 1O; 2 Tim. iv, 1; Rom. ii, 5.
   When death, the last enemy, shall have been destroyed, then shall the
   Son restore the kingdom to the Father, that he may be all in all. [320]
   This expression seems to open before us a boundless view of the
   compassions of God. It is limited, however, by the words of St. Paul as
   to the eternal punishment of the wicked in the day of the Lord. [321]
   We have thus two distinct assertions which we do not find brought into
   harmony in the theology of the Apostle. He associates nature herself
   with the grand consummations of redemption; he represents her as
   groaning and travailing in pain for the deliverance of the sons of God,
   [322] and he leads us to anticipate a sort of resurrection of the
   material world as the abode of glorified humanity.

   The views of the Apostle as to the nearness of this closing period of
   history, which is to be inaugurated by the personal return of Christ,
   seem to have undergone some modifications. In the, first stage of his
   apostolical career he supposes, with all the Christians of that time,
   that but a very few years will intervene before the coming of the day
   of the Lord; he is even persuaded that it will arrive before his own
   death. [323] Subsequently, in the Roman prison, on the eve of sealing
   his testimony with his blood, he receives new light. This is very
   evident from his Epistle to the Philippians. Phil. i, 20-25. He learns
   before his death that centuries are to be granted to the Church for the
   fulfillment of its work, and for sowing the seed of the Gospel in the
   vast field opened to missionary labor.

   This exposition of the doctrine of St. Paul anticipates the solution
   given by him of the great question of the relation of the two
   covenants. We have seen that he fully recognizes the divine and
   preparatory value of the Old Testament; (Gal. iii, 19-23; iv, 1-6;) but
   he regards it as only the shadow and type of the salvation of which the
   Gospel brings us the substance. Col. ii, 17. He contrasts the new law
   with the old.2 Cor. iii, 6-9. The old law, which includes the whole
   Mosaic dispensation, was external; it was the law of the letter, the
   law of precepts regulating the life in detail, but not reaching to the
   inner nature. It was graven on stone, not in the heart; and it remained
   external to man, because it could exercise only the ministry of death,
   and bring man under condemnation. It had no transforming power; its
   character of terror forbade its being received into the heart. The new
   law, on the contrary, is a ministry of life, because by it true
   righteousness (2 Cor. iii, 9) is realized in our salvation; thus it is
   written on the living table of the heart. It is the ministry of the
   Spirit which quickens. It has finally taken the place of the law of
   precepts and of ordinances, which was nailed to the cross of Christ.
   Col. ii, 14. The Christian is entirely set free from that law, but he
   is so much the more dependent on the law of the Spirit of life, which
   is in Christ Jesus. [324] Thus all ceremonial observances, all legal
   distinctions, are done away; Christianity is settled on its true, broad
   basis, and all the exclusiveness of the ancient law melts before the
   manifestation of eternal love. The Apostle of grace raises us to such
   an elevation that the questions bearing upon the circumcision of
   converted Gentiles and the observance of the law, which so long engaged
   the Church, sink out of sight. Christianity appears in its true
   character; the edifice of doctrine built up by St. Paul is so vast that
   within it all the revelations of God range themselves in majestic
   proportions; so that being "rooted and grounded in love, we may be able
   to comprehend with all saints what is their breadth, and length, and
   depth, and height." Eph. iii, 18.

   The apology of the Apostle is closely connected with his doctrine; it
   is animated by the same spirit, and in it also grace occupies the
   foremost place. Truth is alien to the soul in its natural state. "The
   natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they
   are foolishness unto him." 1 Cor. ii, 14. The preaching of the Cross is
   to them that perish foolishness, (1 Cor. i, 18;) but it is none the
   less the wisdom of God to them that are saved-to those, that is, who
   have received the Spirit of God, and whose hearts he has opened. Paul,
   however, while recognizing in every man an element of the divine life,
   bases his apology for Christianity on the need of redemption, of which
   the soul is painfully conscious, and of which he traces the
   manifestations even in the midst of the Gentile world. In his discourse
   at Athens he constantly appeals to this secret aspiration of the human
   heart after the true God. "Whom ye ignorantly worship him declare I
   unto you." Acts xvii, 23. Thus the Apostle avers, on the one hand, that
   man cannot, by his own wisdom, arrive at the possession of the truth,
   and throws down the challenge to all the philosophy of the ancients, in
   the noble words, "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the
   disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
   world?" 1 Cor. i, 20. On the other hand, he admits the existence of
   spiritual cravings in the unconverted man, who is at once desirous and
   powerless to find God. Hence results a state of sadness and unrest,
   which should prepare him to receive the Gospel, But he will not receive
   it unless he suffers himself to be influenced by the Holy Spirit; and
   we find here, in their indissoluble union, grace and freedom, the
   operation of God, and the responsibility of man—in one word, the great
   and legitimate dualism of the teaching of Paul. Let us observe that in
   addressing the heathen, he dwells more upon the internal than upon the
   external evidences of his message. He limits himself to relating in its
   solemn simplicity the fact of redemption, while his great endeavor is
   to bring the soul into contact with Christ; he even goes so far as to
   place in the same category the Jew who requires a sign, and the Greek
   who seeks after wisdom. [325] In truth, faith founded simply upon
   miracle is no more faith but sight, quite as much as the faith which is
   founded only on philosophic reasoning. It is no longer that seeing of
   the invisible, that mystic union with Christ, which lifts us above the
   sphere of the outward and sensible into that of the divine life.

   In addressing the Jews, Paul based his arguments chiefly on the sacred
   Scriptures, of which he distinctly acknowledges the full inspiration. 2
   Tim. iii, 16. He quotes them with great freedom, [326] and his exegesis
   is sometimes very bold, sometimes very minute, sometimes almost
   rabbinical in its method; (See Gal. iv, 22-26;) but taken as a whole it
   displays a deep and admirable comprehension of the Old Testament. It is
   with the exegetical method of St. Paul as with the incorrect language
   which he speaks; he turns both to the best possible account, and
   expresses the highest truths of revelation while making use of an
   instrument for the imperfection of which he was not responsible, since
   he received it from those who went before him.

   We are now in a position to estimate the views of the Tübingen school
   on the theology of St. Paul. To that school it appears a system
   entirely new, and differing widely from the doctrine of Christ. To us,
   on the contrary, it seems evident that the teaching of Paul is based
   entirely on that of the Master. It would be easy to connect all the
   essential points in Paul's theology with words of Christ, contained in
   the first two Gospels. It is, in the first place, universally admitted
   that his prophetic delineation of the last times is in all points in
   conformity with the last discourses of the Saviour. We have already
   shown that his rich and ample tribute to the majesty of Christ as the
   Son of God is but an expansion of the doctrine contained in germ in the
   Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The rejection of the Jews as a nation is
   clearly foretold in the parables. Matt. xix, 30; xx, 16; Mark x, 31.
   Faith is set forth in the synoptics, no less than in the epistles of
   Paul, as the condition of the forgiveness of sins. Matt. ix, 28; xxi,
   22; Mark xi, 24. Jesus Christ repeatedly insisted on the importance of
   his death; and the account of the passion is the sublime commentary on
   his words. We may add that Paul was equally familiar with that portion
   of evangelical tradition which has come down to us in the fourth
   Gospel, and that being so near the source, he doubtless drew copiously
   from it. He does, in fact, quote words of the Master of which we have
   no record apart from his writings. 1 Cor. vii, 10; Acts xx, 35. Paul
   never passed the line laid down by Him who said, "I am the truth." But
   it was given him by the Divine Spirit to discern most important
   applications of those words; enlightened by a special revelation, he
   definitively solved the great question of the relation of the two
   covenants, and he successfully asserted, both by his powerful arguments
   and by his missionary activity, the complete independence of
   Christianity. He achieved its recognition as the ultimate religion,
   which had broken down the wall of partition between man and God, and at
   the same time had leveled all barriers between man and man—the religion
   of mankind redeemed by the blood of the cross. Jesus Christ had died to
   give it birth; Paul in preaching it was the most faithful and the most
   docile of his disciples.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [288] Tou i̓díou ui̔ou ou̓k e̓pheísato, a̓llà u̔pèr ē̔mōn pántōn
   parédōken au̓tón. Rom. viii, 32.

   [289] Ei̓kṑn tou Theou. Col. i, 15-17. The expression prōtótokos
   (first-born of every creature,) has often been used in disproof of the
   divinity of Christ. M. Reuss himself regarded it as an inconsistency in
   the language of Paul. We find no difficulty in it. In the writings of
   Paul, words constantly receive a special and partial significance from
   the context. Here, the sense of the word prōtótokos is defined by the
   general meaning of the passage in which it occurs. The accent is not
   upon tokos, but upon prōtos. Paul regards the Son as the eldest of all
   beings. His right is pre-eminently the right of seniority; but it does
   not follow because he is before all other beings that he is not himself
   eternal. The word tókos in no way excludes the idea that IIe was
   begotten from all eternity. It would be as reasonable to argue against
   the divinity of Christ from the word huios as from the word tókos.

   [290] Hos e̓n morphē theou u̔párchōn ou̓ch a̔rpagmòn ē̔gḗsato tò
   ei̓̂nai i̓́sa Theō (he did not regard equality with God as a prey to be
   taken) a̓llà e̔autòn e̓kénōse. Phil. ii, 6, 7. Comp. 1 Cor. x, 4;
   viii, 6; Rom. viii, 3; Gal. iv, 4; 2 Cor. viii, 9.

   [291] Ho ō̓̀n e̓pì pántōn Theòs. Rom. ix, 5; Titus ii, 13. See Reuss
   ii, 101.

   [292] Kaì au̓tòs o̔ ui̔òs u̔potagḗsetai tō u̔potáxanti au̓tō tà
   pánta. 1 Cor. xv, 28.

   [293] Genoménou e̓k spérmatos Dauìd katà sárka, tou o̔risthéntos
   ui̔ou Theou e̓n dunámei katà pneûma. Rom. i, 3, 4.

   [294] En o̔moiṓmati sarkòs a̔martías. Rom. viii, 3.

   [295] Ho prōtos a̓́nthrōpos Adàm ei̓s psuchḕn zōsan, o̔ e̓́schatos
   Adàm ei̓s pneuma zōͅopoioûn. 1 Cor. xv, 45.

   [296] Paredóthē dià tà paraptṓmata ē̔mōn. Rom. iv, 25.

   [297] Henòs dikaiṓmatos ei̓s pántas a̓nthrṓpous ei̓s dikaíōsin
   zōēs. Rom. v, 18.

   [298] Genómenos u̔pḗkoos méchri thanátou, thanátou dè staurou.
   Phil. ii, 8.

   [299] Tà gàr o̓psṓnia tēs a̔martías thánatos. Rom. vi, 23.

   [300] Hupèr ē̔mōn a̔martían e̓poíēsen. 2 Cor. v, 21.

   [301] Perì a̔martías katékrine tḕn a̔martían e̓n tē sarkí. Rom.
   viii, 3.

   [302] In favor of this view, Gal. iii, 13, is quoted: "Christ hath
   redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,"
   (genómenos u̔pèr ē̔mōn katára.) But the Apostle is careful to add in
   explanation, "For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
   tree." It is the outward fact of the crucifixion, therefore, which is
   the mark of the curse. It is so as suffering and death; it is so in
   itself, without the addition of the idea of damnation. Schweizer, in
   the third number of "Studien und. Kritiken," (1858,) regards this curse
   as simply the anathema of the synagogue which repudiated Christ; and by
   the same act cut off and set at large the Jewish Christians. But this
   explanation is altogether inadequate. That given by us is much more in
   harmony with the whole theology of St. Paul.

   [303] Ēn e̓n Christō kósmon katallássōn e̔autō. 2 Cor. v, 19.

   [304] There is no subject more fraught with grave and weighty
   considerations than that on which we have thus briefly touched.
   Impartial men, who are familiar with the history of theology, will
   admit that the theory of Anselm is so obscurely derivable from the
   words of St. Paul, that for centuries the Church had no conception of
   it. We must be on our guard against identifying with the truth of
   Scripture that which has become a current and popular notion. To do so
   would be to give a lamentable application to the famous adage, Vox
   populi, vox Dei. This theory has against it the gravest moral
   objections. It is enough for us at present to show that it is also
   opposed to the teaching of the Apostles. It has been sustained by a
   legitimate dread of falling, if it were abandoned, into the
   rationalistic conception of redemption, according to which the Cross
   has no significance beyond the simple declaration of the love of God.
   Clearly, in spite of its exaggerations, Anselm's theory is much more in
   harmony with the scriptural representation of redemption than the
   rationalistic idea. But we are not reduced to any such alternative. A
   thoughtful study of the Scriptures will lead to a conception deeper and
   more consonant with moral claims, one which is alike honorable to God
   and satisfying to the conscience.

   [305] Ēgérthē dià tḕn dikaíōsin ē̔mōn. Rom. iv, 25; 2 Cor. v, 15.

   [306] Pneuma Christou. Rom. viii, 9.

   [307] Ho dè díkaios e̓k písteōs zḗsetai. Rom. i, 17.

   [308] Dikaioúmenoi dōreàn tē au̓tou cháriti. Rom. iii, 24.

   [309] Ou̔̀s proégnō, kaì proṓrise. Rom. viii, 29.

   [310] Hē pístis e̓x a̓koēs. Rom. x, 17.

   [311] Ou̓k e̓x u̔mōn; Theou tò dōron. Ephes. ii, 8.

   [312] Katoikēsai tòn Christòn dià tēs písteōs e̓n tais kardíais
   u̔mōn. Ephes. iii, 17, 18.

   [313] Ei̓ gàr súmphutoi gegónamen tō o̔moiṓmati tou thanátou
   au̓tou, a̓llà kaì tēs a̓nastáseōs e̓sómetha. Rom. vi, 5.

   [314] See the beautiful analysis of the word faith in Reuss, ii, 21.

   [315] Christō sunestaúrōmai. Gal. ii, 20.

   [316] Gínesthe oun mimētaì tou Theou, . . . kaì peripateite e̓n
   a̓gápēͅ, kathṑs kaì o̔ Christòs ē̓gápēsen ē̔mas. Ephes. v, 1, 2.

   [317] Tà pánta kaì e̓n pasi Christós. Col. iii, 1.

   [318] Tò plḗrōma tou tà pánta e̓n pasin plērouménou. Ephes. i, 23.

   [319] 1 Thess. iv, 13-16. The idea of a first resurrection has no
   foundation in Paul's epistles. The passage 1 Thess. iv, 16, makes no
   allusion to it. Prōtōs (first in order) applies to the Christians
   already dead, who shall be raised before the Christians still living
   are changed; but the two events will transpire on the same day. The
   judgment is called parousía. (1 Thess. ii, 19; see 2 Tim. iv, 1, where
   it is said that Christ will judge the quick and the dead at his
   appearing.)

   [320] Hina ē̓̂ͅ o̔ Theòs tà pánta e̓n pasin. 1 Cor. xv, 28.

   [321] Olethron ai̓ṓnion. 2 Thess. i, 9.

   [322] Pasa ē̔ ktísis sustenázei kaì sunōdínei a̓́chri tou nun. Rom.
   viii, 22.

   [323] Hēmeis oi̔ zōntes. 1 Thess. iv, 15.

   [324] Diakónous kainēs diathḗkēs, ou̓ grámmatos a̓llà pneúmatos. 2
   Corinthians iii, 6.

   [325] Ioudaioi sēmeia ai̓toûsi kaì Hellēnes sophían zētoûsin. 1
   Corinthians i, 22.

   [326] See, for example, Gal. iii, 16.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § VI. The Gospel of Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

   The Gospel of Luke bears distinct marks of the mind of St. Paul. It
   gives special prominence to the character of mercy in the work and
   teachings of the Master. It is the Gospel which contains the beautiful
   parables of the lost sheep and of the prodigal son. Luke xv. It
   carefully records the calling of the seventy disciples, (Luke x, 1,)
   who, by their symbolic number, represented not simply, like the twelve
   Apostles, the tribes of Israel, but all the nations of the earth. It
   traces the genealogy of Christ back to Adam, while Matthew stops at
   Abraham. It is impossible not to recognize in these various
   characteristics the idea so strikingly exhibited by Paul, of the
   abrogation of all national distinctions by the cross of Christ. The
   book of the Acts of the Apostles is evidently written from the same
   point of view. The sacred historian concentrates his powers in
   depicting the life and labors of the great missionary whose disciple he
   was; we feel that he is thoroughly imbued with Paul's doctrine, and
   with that conciliatory breadth of spirit which in Paul was associated
   with irrefutable force of argument. Luke delights to show that in their
   work the Apostles acted in concert.

   We have already noticed that the Epistle to the Hebrews is also
   traceable to what may perhaps be called the Pauline school of thought.
   [327] It contains the leading principles of Paul's theology, but it
   presents them in a new aspect and makes entirely new applications of
   them. This letter, addressed, as we have seen, to Judaizing Christians,
   is designed to exalt the glory of the new covenant, and to show its
   superiority to the old economy. The author first compares Moses to
   Jesus Christ, and proves without difficulty that there is an
   immeasurable distance between the great Prophet of Israel and the Son
   of God. He then establishes a parallel between the results obtained by
   the law and those assured to us by the Gospel. He is thus led to a
   detailed comparison of the Jewish priesthood with the eternal
   priesthood of Christ. The Epistle concludes with exhortations often
   severe, always admirable. The last three chapters are unquestionably
   among the most beautiful and the most stirring portions of the New
   Testament.

   It is at once obvious that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews has
   a very thorough acquaintance with the Jewish religion; he interprets
   its types and symbols, and makes very effective use of exegesis as bold
   as it is learned. Every page shows traces of the Judaism of Alexandria,
   transfigured, however, by the Spirit of God, as the rabbinic lore of
   Gamaliel became in the case of Paul. The writer insists not less
   forcibly than the Apostle on the exalted dignity of Christ. He declares
   that he is far higher than the angels; he gives to him the name of God.
   He is the Son, the brightness of the Father's glory, the express image
   of his person. [328] These expressions bear a striking analogy to the
   declarations of St. John c6ncerning the Word; they are more explicit
   than those of Paul. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews dwells
   with beautiful and touching emphasis on the humiliation of the Son of
   God: "It behooved him," he says, "to be made like unto his brethren,
   that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
   pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
   Heb. ii, 17. The idea of redemption is clearly stated. Jesus Christ is
   not only our High Priest, he is also the Victim by whose blood we
   obtain peace. His "blood speaketh better things than that of Abel."
   Heb. xii, 24. The sacrifice of the Saviour is a perfect sacrifice,
   which needs not to be repeated; its perfectness proceeds from the
   spotless holiness of Him who offers it. Heb. vii, 27; ix, 26. The blood
   of Christ is not simply the pledge of the promise of God, it actually
   takes away sin. Heb. ix, 20-26. The redeeming sacrifice opens to us the
   way into the true sanctuary, into which our High Priest has already
   entered gloriously. [329] In all these respects the new covenant is
   incomparably superior to the old. This conception of the sacrifice of
   Calvary contains no element not already included in the doctrine of St.
   Paul. The connection is as close between suffering and holiness; but
   the parallel constantly drawn by the author of the Epistle to the
   Hebrews between the economy of Moses and the new covenant leads him to
   make more frequent use of the language of the Old Testament, and to lay
   more stress on that which we may call the aspect of blood in the
   redemptive sacrifice. Ht affirms no less forcibly than Paul the
   abolition of that old law which made nothing perfect, but he has not
   formed so deep a conception of its preparatory work. To him it is
   mainly "the shadow