YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

IN

THE APOSTOLIC TIMES.

A HISTORY

OF

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
|n % $pstolic SXnws.

BY
HENRY W. J. THIERSCH.

Sd'SMlscUb from % formstt
By the late THOMAS CARLYLE,
Advocate.

SECOND ENGLISH, FEOM THE THIED GEEMAN EDITION.

LONDON:
THOMAS BOSWORTH, 66, GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.
1883.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION 1852.

The ecclesiastical history, of which this first
volume, on the Apostolic Age, has just appeared
in Germany, and is now presented to the English
reader, makes no parade of erudition. But it is
the work of an erudite, orthodox, and pious man,
as a Professor of Theology. It embodies the well-
digested results of laborious enquiry ; and it is
exempt from the faults of many similar com
positions. Its small compass makes it accessible.
It is no inaccurate, superficial, and trite com
pilation at second hand. It does not profane the
Church by treating its rise and progress as those
of a merely human institution. It is neither a dry
chronicle, nor a series of religious biographies.
And it is no party work.
Independent of its vindicating the divine origin
of Christianity, and the inspiration of its records,
and of its luminous disquisition as to the true
source and proper place of Episcopacy, the merit
of this volume lies in its exposition of the relation
between the human theatre and instruments, on

VI PREFACE.
the one hand, and the divine purposes and agency
on the other. Many men virtually regard the God
of the Church and the God of nature as two
different beings. They look upon nothing as being
truly spiritual which is at all analogous to the
providential course of this world. And they
concede no due place to the exercise of man's
faculties, the operation of human motives, and
the influence of external circumstances, in the acts,
writings, and judgments of Christ's servants ; as
if, lest, by doing so, they should bring into
question the agency of God. Such views the
present work is eminently suited to correct, by
transporting us into the midst of those persons,
principles, and historical data, in which
Christianity, planted by the same God who had
prepared the soil, took root and grew — not an
arbitrary heterogeneous exotic, but a development
as natural as its origin was divine. We here learn
to understand God's present working with fallible
instruments and in uncompleted forms, by seeing
how He suited His eternal ways to man's condition
at the beginning of the dispensation. We see not
only how the Church gradually made way and
was manifested, as a perfect work awaiting only
its place and recognition, but how she herself
actually grew in knowledge as in stature, and was
gradually led by the Spirit of Christ and the
providence of God, through successive stages, into
the knowledge of her place, her constitution, her
duties, and her destiny.

PREFACE. Vif
We must remind those who may think some of
the arguments in the work superfluous, that
Germany, the hot-bed of speculative unbelief, is
the place of publication. Some extracts from the
author's preface will illustrate his position and
objects. " One great error which pervades all recent
investigations into the ancient history of the
Church, is seen, indeed, in its most naked form,
among those critics who regard the primitive
Christians as a generation 'reduced to a mere
existence in literature.' But such a view, natural
enough in professional pedants, who would
gladly make the past a mirror in which to see
themselves, is only an extreme form of the
unecclesiastical ideas as to antiquity, which have
long since crept in among us, and which it is high
time to renounce. Both inquiry and experience
now point to something better. The Church of
old was no literary hot-house, no club of sophistic
disputants, no theatre for individual license; least
-of all in its beginnings. The solemn worship of
God — the dignified severity of discipline — the
authority of holy tradition, were essentials with
her from the first. The principle of order was
not infused into her by Roman domination or
incipient priestcraft. She is herself essentially a
divine institution, a building fashioned of God, an
organism in which divine ideas find expression.
With the understanding of this we acquire
a true insight into Christian antiquity. He

VIII PREFACE.
who succeeds in constructing, not a mere
chronicle of literature, dogmas, heresies, and
rival schools, but a Church history in the
proper sense of the word, has, in doing so, obtained
a salutary lesson for the present time. The
Church, although of heavenly birth, and wonder-
ously guided by our risen Redeemer, is a
strictly historical structure. She did not appear
suddenly in a perfect form, as unhistorical or
thodoxy may dream ; but was gradually developed.
My chief labors have been long directed to
establish the credibility of the New Testament-
The enemies and friends of the sacred writings
will agree, that such collections of bones and
splinters as pass under such names as, ' Intro
duction into the New Testament,' 'Biblical
Theology, &c.,' have no value. One may con
trovert for ever about the worth and origin of
individual fragments. But when all is combined
harmoniously into a living structure, when piece,
joined to piece, completes the building, some
thing is done which will satisfy the friends, and
silence the enemies of truth."
" I have sought to learn from all quarters, even
from the open adversaries of Holy Scripture.
The criticism, of negation does the same service as.
all heresy, which, condemnable though it be, has
ever brought forward to our notice points of truth
which had been overlooked. If this is the case
with dogmas, why not also with history ? Many
things have been rightly observed by the sceptic

PREFACE. IX.
which have escaped the orthodox. We must
acknowledge every true discovery (not hypothesis)
let it come whence it may, and give to it its
proper interpretation and place. Love for the truth
constrains me to make this use of the writings of
opponents." " The chief critical problem in primitive Church
history is the genesis of Christian truth and life
from the womb of Mosaism — the liberation of the
Church from the Synagogue— the mutual relations
of the Hebrew and Gentile parts of Christendom.
To this point I have directed special attention. If
we are now to have true light upon it, our
theologians must learn, better than they have
hitherto done, to transplant themselves into, and
give due reverence to, the Mosaic economy, in a
truly historical spirit; that they may know the
position of the nascent Church in the nursery out
of which it proceeded. Without faith in the Old
Testament, as divine, one cannot understand it.
And, as long as it is not understood, as long as its
economy is an object of indifference or dislike,
primitive Christianity cannot be rightly appre
hended. Perhaps I have here erred on the side of
brevity. But I prefer this error to its opposite. I
have avoided all that useless traffic in quotations
and parade of abstruse phrases, which make most of
our theological works so distasteful and unprofit
able to the laity. But one thing I assume in every
reader, a knowledge, — at least an accompanying
consultation — of Holy Scripture. He, who does

PREFACE.

not take the trouble to read the texts to which I
refer, will derive little profit from this work."
" I cannot conclude without a word to you, our
young theologians, amongst whom I have so long
lived and laboured. I know your miserable
distraction by the conflicts of your teachers. The
cruelty with which every variety of scepticism, of
diluted and corrupted faith has been thrust upon
you, has brought on some of you intellectual stupe
faction, slavish subjection to the authority of in
fidelity and eradication of capacity for divine truth.
Shake off your indifference, and take courage.
Break the bonds of blind obedience to those who,
out of their own withered souls, can impart to you
nothing but the science of doubt and suspicion.
Be no longer mere note-takers, but real inquirers ;
no longer mere dreaming book-worms, but men
who wrestle for truth in prayer. Return to the ,
Holy Scriptures, that fountain of truth, the waters 5
of which your enemies have taught you to suspect |
and put from your lips. Drink once more with i
confidence. And, when you are refreshed with life |
from above, know, of what blessings men would i
rob you."
We may congratulate ourselves in this country
that atheism and heresy are not yet provided for
and taught in our schools of instruction, as varied
forms of truth. But our exemption from this will
be dangerous indeed, if it blinds us to our own
proper defects and perils. In avoiding latitudin-
arianism, we may have ceased to be catholic. In

PREFACE. XI

our abhorrence of scepticism, we may have
neglected to make ourselves intelligent. In
defending the alphabet of the faith, we may have
left its depths unexplored. Though we have
inherited the form of truth, we may have lost its
life. And though we may not be the more active
agents, we may not the less be the carnal and
ignorant dupes, of Antichrist. They only who are
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works,
have that which will enable them to endure unto
the end. If the perusal of these pages shall lead
any forward to seek our common perfection, one
great object of this translation will be served.

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE
TO THE NEW EDITION.

Thirty years have elapsed since the first edition
•of this history appeared. I had contemplated
to continue the narrative down to the fourth
Oecumenical Council (451). But in the mean
time I found myself obliged to give up so
extensive a plan. Having resigned my chair
at the University of Marburg, I missed the
encouraging intercourse with students and fellow-
teachers, and my time was to a great extent taken
up by pastoral work. I was sorry to disappoint
some of my benevolent readers, and especially
my honoured friend the translator, the late
Thomas Carlyle of blessed memory. But those
who have an idea of the vastness of the subject
will understand, that only he who gives his whole
strength to it can acquire a complete knowledge
of all the documents and fragments of Christian
antiquity, and draw up a narrative based in every
single line upon the original sources. Such was
my endeavour in composing this volume ; and I
wished to make the continuation of the history

xiv AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION.
not unworthy of the beginning. I could not make
up my mind to trust extracts made by others, nor
to repeat trite phraseology.
This volume as it is forms a whole by itself,
it is intended to serve as a contribution towards
defending the authenticity of the New Testament
Scriptures and the truthfulness of the historical
statements contained in them.
I am fully aware, that faith in our blessed Lord
Jesus Christ and in His Gospel cannot be the
result of the exertion of the understanding, nor of
scientific discussions. It is the work of the Spirit
of God in the conscience and spirit of man ; and
the appropriate means for illuminating our spirit
and producing a living faith in our hearts is the
preaching of the Gospel in power, and the setting
forth of the truth in pure Christian life and
conversation. Nevertheless the learned among the ministers
of Christ have a certain work to do in His service.
Let them be like the Gibeonites, whom Joshua
appointed to be hewers of wood and drawers of
water for the house of God. Science may pave
the way for faith, and remove such intellectual
hindrances and stumbling blocks as are put by
the enemy before those seeking after divine truth.
Whilst irreligious systems in most cases arise
from a wrong state of the heart, their supporters
try to persuade themselves and others, that their
denial of scriptural truth is based upon historical
research and a lawful exercise of critical acumen.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION. XV
Is this true or not ? That is the question. It
is the fulfilling of a sacred duty, to enter into the
details of history and criticism, that we may show
that sacred history is well, and even better
warranted than any history of the past; that
there is consistency and no contradiction in the
New Testament records, and no proof whatever
against the veracity of their authors. If we
succeed in establishing that the history of the
primitive Church, including the origin of our
sacred books, forms a consistent and harmonious
whole, we may hope thereby to afford an aid to
faith. In a similar manner, within the sphere of
nature, medical art is unable to create or impart
life ; still it may remove nuisances and obstruc
tions which otherwise would injure health and
endanger life.
In revising the work of my early years I am
happy to find, that I am able to maintain all the
principal assertions made therein. Many years'
experience and meditation have only tended to
strengthen my belief in the authenticity and
inspiration of every part of the New Testament.
It is a painful fact that in the course of the last
generation scepticism and infidelity have been
spreading and gaining ground in all parts of
Christendom. At the same time many successful
efforts have been made in England to establish
the authority of the Bible. France and Germany
seem to be less favored. In those countries but

XVI AUTHOR S PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION.
a few stern defenders are coming forth and many
bold opposers, whilst many suppose that by
making concessions and throwing overboard
certain parts of the Bible, they can better cling to
the rest, and defend as it were the very sanctuary
of religion. I will mention here three works of
Continental learning, which seem to represent
the three different tendencies just mentioned.
Dr. DSllinger's book in defence of the New
Testament is of the first rank (Christenthum und
Kirche zur Zeit der Grundlegung2. Edit. Begensburg
1868.) I do not hesitate to call the author, to whom I
am indebted as my teacher and friend, the first of
theologians now living as to profoundness of
learning and vastness of horizon ; and I am inclined
to think that the book I quote is the most
valuable of all his publications.
At the extreme left M. Erneste Renan presents
himself with his seven volumes on the Origines du
•Christianisme {Vie de Jesus — les Apotres — St. Paul
i—V Antechrist — les Evangiles et la seconde generation
des Chretiens — VEglise Chretienne — Marc Aurele et
la fin du monde antique). We have nothing to do
on this occasion with his biography of our Lord,
the profaneness of which has been denounced and
lamented over even by his own friends, the free
thinkers in France. Looking over the succeeding
volumes it occurs to the reader that as the
author went on with his work his compositions
became more and more solid and valuable. It is

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION; XVII
the- same remark which suggests itself on reading
M. Thiers's twenty volumes on the French
Revolution, the Consulate and the Empire. The
beginnings are rather superficial, and the latter
parts are of increasing historical merit.
Whenever M. Renan deals with profane history,
his sketches are most remarkable^ The character
of Nero, the great fire at Rome, the legislation of
the Emperors concerning liberty of worship, the
policy of Vespasian, Titus and Domitianus (the
dynastie bourgeoise as M. Renan well styles them),
the influence of Greek philosophy — all these are
subjects which the author handles in an admirable
way. But whenever he has to do with sacred
persons, his misinterpretations are revolting. In
such cases he does not shrink from wild imagina
tions like these : St. Paul espoused Lydia of
Thyatira ; on his voyage to Spain he began to
doubt of his whole career and sighed : Ergo
erravi ! M. Renan is still too much of an historian
to deny — with Baur the German and Scholten
the Dutch sceptic — the authenticity of St.
John's Gospel. But refusing to believe in its
truth he dares to represent St. John as a vain
old man, and the disciples who attest the truth
fulness of St. John's record, as charlatans and
intriguants. Imagine a beautiful landscape like Poussin's or
Claude Lorraine's, and- in the midst of the
picture, instead of noble human figures, an
assemblage of monsters, spectres and devils —

xviii author's PREFACE to THE NEW EDITION.
such is the general aspect of M. Renan's Origins
of Christianity.
Whilst every man is responsible for his deeds
and words, none is entirely independent ; each of
us is liable to the influences of his time and
nation, and to the impressions of his youth. We
must take these elements into account in order to
explain a man's character and to form a fair
opinion of his doings. M. Renan seems never to
have made the acquaintance of pure and earnest
Christian characters, such as have been brought
out in the better phases of Protestantism. He
supposes veracity to be the late product of the
modern critical mind of Western Europe. He
loses sight of Him of whom it is said : " He did
no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth."
He ignores the martyrs, who, being true followers
of Christ, sacrificed their lives rather than deny
the truth, or save themselves by an equivocation.
He takes it for granted that the sacred authors
were deceivers ; at the same time he is far from
pronouncing a severe sentence against them. He
is indulgent and polite in allowing an excuse. He
thinks the two things may well go together,
sincere religious feelings and impudent forgeries.
There appears in him a painful want of sound
moral sense and discernment. And perhaps this
riddle may be explained by remembering in what
school of Divinity M. Renan was brought up.
Were not the professors of the Siminaire de
Saint Sulpie Loyolites ? To confound the early

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION. XIX
Christians and the Jesuits, is a mistake not be
coming to a serious historian. But one may well
ask : is M. Renan after all un homme serieux ?
He seems to be a genuine child, and a striking
type of his nation. The prevailing desecration of
Christianity at Paris is conspicuous, the solemn
worship of God degenerating into an opera
performance, and the Churches serving for a
rendezvous of the beau monde. It happens by the
same process of corruption that under the pen of
the Parisian author the sacred history of Christ
and of the primitive Church is caricatured into a
sensational novel.
When you pass from M. Renan to Heinrich
Ewald, the late German Orientalist, you will feel a
great relief. In volumes vi. and vii. of his History
of Israel he comes down to the Apostolic times,
and in his last publications he comments on most
of the New Testament books.
Much can be said against his method of
criticising the Old Testament Scriptures. Whilst
he, like J. G. Herder, admires the poetical
beauty and sublimity of the Bible, he has no faith
in divine prophecy, and he goes to a great
length in explaining away miraculous facts. The
influence he exercised upon Dean Stanley's book
on the same subject was by no means favorable.
He was not sound in doctrine concerning the
Trinity and the Incarnation.
Nevertheless, the same author in his later
years came forth as a most notable supporter of

XX AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION.
the New Testament. "He was indefatigable in
fighting against the enormities of the so-called
Tubingen School, Baur, Strauss & Co. What
he says on the origin of the gospels, on the authen
ticity of S. John's gospel, the .credibility of the
Acts, the harmony between S. Peter and S. Paul,
between S. Paul and S. John, of the buddings of
Antinomianism in the Gentile Churches — all this
is of paramount importance. What he gives is
truly a history of religion. By his extraordinary
knowledge of the Old Testament he was prepared
to enter into the sense of the New.
His style is tedious, and cannot bear a compari*
son with M. Renan's fascinating elquence. But
this defectiveness is trifling compared with the
intrinsic value of Ewald's writings on the New
Testament, and it is desirable that they should
be made accessible to the English public, at least
in extracts or a summary. Whilst great scholars;
generally speaking, are weak, irresolute and timid,
EwalD proved himself in public life a great
character. Twice he sacrificed his position at
the University pf Goettingen ; in 1837 ne stood
up for the constitution ; in 1866 for the dynasty.
In his political pamphlets, and as a Member of
the German Parliament, he maintained his ground
against the perverse principles and tendencies of
those days like a Christian Cato.
In preparing this new edition the translation
has been revised, corrections and additions from
the third German edition (Augsburg, 1879) have

AUTHOR S PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION. XXI
been made, a new exordium (page i — 5), notes,
and an index have been added. I have abstained
from quoting many modern authors, or encum
bering the narrative by digressions. I wished to
preserve the symmetry and simplicity which I
aimed at when I first composed the book. And I
humbly desire that, in spite of its imperfections,
it may still be found useful as a means for eluci
dating the history of primitive Christianity, and
for strengthening faith in the gospel of Christ.
THE AUTHOR.
Bale, November, 1882.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
Chapter First  Heathenism .... ' i— %%
Chapter Second. — Judaism  21. — 41
Chapter Third. — Christ and the Church . 41 — 60

THE CnURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
CHAPTER I.
THE LABORS OF S. PETER.
Pentecost — Gift of tongues— Discourses of Peter — First Perse
cutions — Oldest ecclesiastical constitution—Community of
goods — Discipline — Deacons — Elders — James — Position of
the Apostles ..... 60 — 79
Stephen — Discourse of Stephen — Martyrdom of Stephen-
Planting of the Church in Samaria— Simon the sorcerer 
Baptism of first heathen — Persecution under Herod Agrippa
I. — Martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee— Flight of
Peter ...... 79—91
Peter in Rome — Jewish Colony in Rome — Banishment of Jews
under Claudius— Gospel of Mark— Planting of the Church
in Alexandria — Labors of the other Apostles to Israel — Epistle
of James — James Bishop of Jerusalem . . 91 — io<5
CHAPTER II.
THE LABORS OF S. PAUL.
Youth of Paul — Paul as Persecutor — Paul's conversion — Paul's
outward career — Paul's inward progress — Revelations to

XXIV CONTENTS.
Paul — Commencement of Paul's apostleship — Paul as Apostle
to the Gentiles — Paul's behaviour to the Jews. . 107 — 117
First journey of Paul— The Churches in Galatia — Judaists in
Antioch — Council at Jerusalem — Decisions of the Council —
Other transactions there — Recognition of Paul— Behaviour
of Paul as to the decision — Error of Peter at Antioch—
Resistance by Paul — Separation of Paul and Barnabas. 117 — 139
Second journey of Paul — His fellow-laborers — His dealing with
Timothy — Planting of Macedonian Churches — Paul in Athens
— Paul in Corinth — The Corinthian Church — Parties in
Corinth ..... 129 — 136
Third journey of Paul — Paul in Ephesus — Ephesus capital of
Gentile Christianity— Source of Gentile heresies — Essene
errors in Colosse ..... 136 — 140
Form of Churches under Paul — The Pastoral Epistles — Fixed
order in the Church — Liberty to prophesy — Fixed offices in
the Church — Sunday — Asceticism — Public prayer — Reading
of Oid Testament — Communication of Christ's discourse
— Gospel of Luke — Discipline — Deacons and Elders — No
Bishop yet — Apostolic delegates — Unity of the Church —
Perfection of the Church , 140 — 153
Relation of Paul to the Churches under Peter — Restoration to
the Church at Rome — Respect of Paul for it — Epistles to
Romans and Galatians — Epistle to Romans — Paul's apology
— Church and State in Rome — Paul's last visit to Jerusalem
— Accommodation to Judaism— Paul before the Sanhedrin— -
Paul in the power of Felix — Paul in Prison — Writings of
Paul and Luke— Arrival of Paul in Rome— Reception by the
Jews . . . . . . 153—167
State of Judaea — Gospel of Matthew — Persecution of Christians
under High Priest A nanus— Martyrdom of James— Excom
munication of faithful in Judae — Epistle to the Hebrews-
Exclusion of faithful from Jewish worship— Remaining
attachment to Moses— Authorship of Epistle to the Hebrews
— Paul and Barnabas .... 168  190
Peter's second visit to Rome— First Epistle of Peter— Spread of

CONTENTS. XXV
the Church in Western Asia — Peter comforts the Churches of
Paul — Heathen slanders — Threatening of persecution by Nero
— Rome new Babylon — Second Epistle ol Peter — Heathenism
in the Church — Late reception of Second of Peter — Labors
of Peter and Paul in Rome — Persecution by Nero — Martyr
dom of Peter and Paul — Consequences of the same. 190 — 203
CHAPTER 111.
LABORS OF JOHN, AND THE CHURCH AT THE END OF THE
APOSTOLIC AGE.
Causes of the Jewish war — First rising against the Romans
— Expectations of Messiah — False prophets — The conflict —
Civil war — Sufferings of Christians — Defeat of Cestius Gallus
— Flight of Christians from Judaea — Campaigns of Vespasian
— Distress of Jerusalem by Vespasian — Siege by Titus —
Destruction of Jerusalem — Its effect on the Church. 203 — 216
Apocalypse — Date — Authorship— The seven Churches — Their
agreement with Paul — Heretics in them — Judaizing false
Apostles— Heathen Gnostics— Nicolaitans — Epistle of Jude.
216 — 236
Duties of John— His later writings— First Epistle— Antichrists
expelled— False gnosis— Docetas — Two kinds— Cerinthus. 236—247
Gospel by John— Its object— Its relation to the three others—
To the Apocalypse— Stamp of John on Church— Authenti
city of his Gospel .... 247 — 254
John as orderer of the Church— Ecclesiastical institutions-
Angels of the seven Churches— Episcopate therein— Episcopate
in chief cities — Metropolitans— Second Epistle by John-
Advantage of Episcopacy — Relation of bishop to Presbyters—
Nqt domination— Abuses— Third Epistle by John— Meaning
of Episcopacy— Old and New Testament hierarchy— Call
and ordination— Discipline— Restoration of fallen— Weekly
feasts— Annual fasts and Easter— Diversities in celebration of

XXVI CGNTENTS.
Easter— Worship— Hymns to Christ— Rituals— FixedLiturgy
— Baptism — Infant Baptism— Apostles' Creed— First half of
principal act of worship— The Scriptures— Second half of
worship — Eucharistic offering  254 — 288
Restoration of Synagogue in Judaea— Restoration of Church
in Jerusalem — Appointment of Simeon as bishop — Hebrew
bishops— Communion of Hebrews and Greeks— Hebrews
pure till Trajan — Schisms and heresies in second century
— Breaking up of unity on death of Apostles — Invasion by
Pharisaic and Essene heresies after the same — Church in
Antioch — Ignatius — His Epistles — His Martyrdom — The
Church in Syria  288—306
First Bishops of Alexandria — Privileges of the elders there —
Peculiar constitution of the Egyptian Church — Dangers at
Alexandria — Entrance of Therapeutae — Pretended Epistle of
Barnabas — Faithfulness of Alexandrian bishops — Gloom of
Egyptian Christians  306 — 314
Influence of Roman Church on the West — Law and rule — First
Roman bishops — Traditions about Clement of Rome and his
writings — Persecution under Domitian — Jewish Christians in
Roman Church — Epistle of Clement to Corinthians — Its
import and authenticity — Pastor of Hernias — Conjectures in
regard to — Jewish ideas therein — No Jewish heresy — Light
therein on the state of the Church . . . 314 — 350

Conclusion — Disappearance of Apostle and delegates — Difference
between Episcopacy and Apostleship — Episcopacy not the
highest office — Devolution on bishops— Need of higher
authority — Elders in Asia — Metropolitans — Buddings of
Romish primacy — Feeling of Church on disappearance of
Apostles — Death of John — Tradition as to his arrival and
return — Check to Development of Church — Uncertainty of
Church as to the future  335 — 350

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

HEATHENISM.

Both the origin of the human race and the beginnings
of heathenism are involved in mystery, and the
multifarious traditions of antiquity cannot be discerned
nor combined except in the light of divine revelation.
The Mosaic record of those primeval facts is of
inestimable value. It is framed under inspiration, it has
received its solemn confirmation by Him, who is Christ
and Lord, and by His Apostles, Matth. v. 17. 18. xix,
4. 5. Rom. v. 12. i Tim. ii. 13. 14.
The truth of the gospel of salvation is closely
connected with the facts recorded in the first eleven
chapters of Genesis. Man created in the image of God,
placed in paradise, in a state of innocence and of
communion with his Creator ; his fall and its disastrous
consequences, the dominion both of sin and death over
all mankind; the unity of the human race and the
descent of all nations from one common root; these are
fundamental truths, which cannot be denied nor set
B

2 HEATHENISM.
aside without sapping the message of salvation. There
is one Adam, the natural head of all mankind, and one
Christ, the head of the new creation ; there is one guilt
common to all, and one redemption for all.
Our Christian forefathers walked in the light of
revealed religion, and the great purpose of God from
beginning to end was well known to them. It was Deism
in the seventeenth, Atheism in the eighteenth century,
which gradually undermined sound faith and obscured
the light of revelation to the eyes of many. Thus it could
happen that the strange delusion spread under which
marry of our contemporaries labour. The history of
mankind is supposed to have begun with a brutish
condition; intelligence, language and civilisation are
understood to be the result of slow and perpetual self-
development. Starting from this erroneous prejudice the supporters
of so called Positivism and Agnosticism take for granted
that in the history of religious ideas, polytheism, gross
idolatry and impurity of worship, were the first stage ;
not consequences of man's fall, but rather the remains
of a primitive low condition. They suppose, that in a
late period some eminent individuals, and under their
influence whole nations, arose above that level, and
happily arrived at Monotheism and at moral principles.
A true figure of the real history of mankind is
presented to us in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke
xv, 11-32), who in disobedience left his noble father's
house, wasted his heritage and sank into the depths of
self-degradation, until at last he found hisjway home, was
pardoned by his father and restored to a blessed state.
In striking contrast to this truth, modern infidelity
stamps the prodigal son — heathen antiquity — as a

HEATHENISM.

born beggar and a swineherd from the beginning, who
by an unaccountable process elevated himself into a
high position.
This theory, which like leaven pervades modern
society and captivates even some of those who wish to
preserve religious feelings, is not a harmless opinion.
It is a fatal lie, destructive of religious and moral
principles. It is a calumny against the dignity of man,
it obscures the light of the knowledge of God in the soul,
it leaves no room for redemption, it takes away the
hope of a future immortal state, it strikes at the root
of civilisation ; and those, who act under this delusion,
will at last really reduce society to that bestial state,
from which, according to their dreams, it originally
emerged. To support the wanton denial of the .Mosaic record,
appeal has been made to history and to the traces of a
prehistoric condition. But we venture to say that the
facts of history can only be understood in connexion
with the scriptural doctrine, and rather tend to
strengthen our faith.
What is the ultimate result of the comparison of
languages? Those who depart from revealed faith
are led to suppose that the first form of speech was
inarticulate, void of logic, a state which has been
described as antegrammatical. In opposition to this,
Erneste Renan (in his Histoire des langues Simitiques.
Paris, 1S56,) comes to the conclusion that there is no
trace to be found of an antegrammatical state, nor of
a progress from such into the grammatical. He states
that each of the ancient languages, with its riches of
forms and with its syntax full of meaning, appears as
a sudden creation of an eminent mind : une cr'eation de
b 2

4 HEATHENISM.
tout un coup. The same holds good' for the one-
primeval language which preceded all the dialects
known to us. Speech itself was in its first beginning a
gift from above, a divine endowment.
Concerning religion, we notice nations in antiquity,..
who had little experience of those arts which embellish
earthly life, and at the same time were in possession of
pure and profound religious teaching, derived from
immemorial tradition. And as to those nations who
were and are given to Polytheism, we discern at the
bottom of the popular Pagan superstitions, the traces of
Monotheism derived from a better patriarchal religion,
and bearing witness to a primitive unity of mankind.
The legendary traditions concerning the earliest
state of society seem to contradict themselves, but in
fact they present two different sides of the one truth.
Whilst Hesiod in his Theogony sings of a golden
age wherein justice and peace prevailed, and laments-
over the gradual degeneration of mankind during the
successive ages of silver, brass and iron, others speak
of a primitive condition of ferocity and misery, from
which mortals were rescued by the interference of
Deities, and by heroes and legislators who built cities
and regulated society by law.
Thus Hesiod testifies, in harmony with Moses, to
the paradisiac state ; the others, having lost sight of the
first stage, stop in their recollections of the debased
and helpless condition which followed after the con
fusion of tongues and the dispersion of the tribes over
the surface of the earth, which had been devastated
by the Deluge.
The origin of Polytheism and of Pagan worship
seems to be closely connected with the fact recorded in.

HEATHENISM. 5
KJenesis xi., viz., the destruction of the tower of Babel
and the breaking up of the unity of mankind. Out of
the variety of nations sprang the variety of their gods.
By the fault of man the darkness of idolatry gained
ground ; by the mercy and forbearance of God sparks
of light were preserved, which prepared the minds of
men for receiving the full light of Christianity.
The original unity of mankind was one not of speech
only, but of thought, object, and action ; one fitted to
form a basis for the Kingdom of God on earth. But
it was abused by man in his Titanic attempt, and
therefore by God destroyed. Mankind were about to
establish and extend their kingdom in this world
without God, in a way which precluded all hope of
-amendment. The divine judgment in the confusion of
tongues and dispersion of nations, anticipated this
danger, and, while it punished the daring deed, afforded
the means of deliverance. Not by a gradual process, for
which thousands of years would not have sufficed, but
by an extraordinary and sudden event was the human
family divided, through those tongues, sections, and
characters, which without effacing in any nation all
traces of original unity, have ever since separated,
nay alienated, men from each other. And of the dis
membered body each part was destined to follow the
bias of its peculiar character, until all, after long
experience and manifold chastisement, should be ripe
for a higher reconstitution as the people of God.
There was, as far as we are aware, no polytheism or
idolatry while the human race continued undivided. The
confusion of tongues seems to have; in a great measure,
expunged the remembrance of the beginnings of man, so
as to allow each race honestly to regard itself as an

D HEATHENISM.
Autochthon in its new possessions. Yet each did take-
with it sacred recollections, holy customs, and traditional
rights ; those elements of religion and morals, which
are so inseparable from the undestroyed though fallen
being of man, that nothing but personal guilt can ex
tirpate them. And the men of ancient times were open
to the influences of higher powers to a degree of which
moderns have little conception. Hence, it is no marvel,
that the fear of the Creator, the reference of law to
Him, the worship of God with offerings and penances,
the doctrine of the existence, punishment, and reward of
souls after death, formed elements in all religions, and
were so intimately connected with the real relation of
man to God that they were ever ready to re-appear
after any apparent extinction. Men felt at once the
nearness of the Almighty, their own estrangement, and
the desire to appease His wrath. They knew that sin
was sin — that it stood exposed to a divine judgment;
that it could be taken away only by suffering; and that
deliverance from a fallen condition could only come
through humiliation, devotion, and self-renunciation.
And herein lay the origin and basis of atonement in
its manifold forms; a thing which naturally arose
after the loss of man's communion with God in
paradise. The fountain of true religion is not the working of
the understanding, but the voice of God in the con
science ; not the anxious excitement of the fancy, but
the feeling of homage and thankfulness towards the
Giver of all good. The faith of God's existence is not
submitted to the option of man. It is there, anterior to
man's volition ; and can only be suppressed by a
criminal resolve. Fallen man was still able, not only to

HEATHENISM. J
know God, but to worship Him. The willing neglect
of this was the source of heathen error, with all its
vain imaginations and wicked works. " They knew God
— He did not leave Himself without witness — they could
seek, feel after, and find Him." This, and no less, says
Paul of the heathen ; and it is true, both of the nations in
ancient times, and of every individual to the present hour.
A sin of omission was the step which brought the nations
into that course which ended in the deepest darkness :
"They knew God, and gave Him not thanks, nor
glorified Him as God. Therefore were they given up,
first to the vanity of their minds, and then to the dark
ness of their hearts." Every fresh step of their decline
was a fresh judgment. But at each step restoration '
was possible, in yielding to the feelings of thankfulness
and duty, through a right use of the measure of light
afforded to them.
The first consequence of this unthankfulness, and
therefore the second step in the way of apostasy, was
the vanity of men's imaginations as to things divine ;
the turning of their wisdom into folly. They no longer
distinguished between Creator and creature ; and,
passing by the former, directed to the latter that
homage which they could not withhold from some object
or other. By this crime they were brought to the
third step in their downward course — the moral obtuse-
ness — the self-profanation — the flagitious crimes of
heathen antiquity. " Because they would not retain God in
their knowledge, He gave them up to a reprobate mind
and shameful lusts." Where the true relation between
creature and Creator is destroyed, that of one creature
to another must needs also be corrupted.
The dark secret of heathenism lies not in polytheism,

8 HEATHENISM.
but in the deification of the creature. Whether crea
tion as a whole or an individual creature be worshipped ;
whether the spirit of nature, pervading all things and
awakened to consciousness in man, be uplifted to the
throne of divinity ; or a material object, a shapeless
block — a white elephant — an Egyptian bull — a warrior's
spear, be selected for adoration as a symbol of nature's
power ; we see exhibited various stages of culture and
forms of thought, but one and the self-same sin.
Every rite and tradition of polytheism contains
traces of faith in the unity of a primeval cause. But
the question was and is,, whether the stream of natural
life, the hidden root of all creatures, is the divinity
itself. Man, himself made in the image of God, could j
never have fallen into the delusion of pantheism, i
save by refusing thanksgiving and obedience to the
God whom he knew.
What then were the forms assumed by the vain
imaginations of man as to God ? A full answer to
this question would lead us into the labyrinth of
mythology. It will here suffice to point out a few
fixed results.
Traces may be found of a correspondence in the
progress of idolatry among different nations. The
worship of the heavenly bodies was the first, and, so
to speak, the most excusable form of idolatry. The
admiration and adoration of the great powers of nature
in heaven and earth, long preceded the worship which
connected itself with local objects, such as mountains,
forests, rivers, and stones fallen from heaven. And the
estimation of images made by man, as being not only
symbols but actual abodes of divine power, appeared
still later in some nations ; in others, not at all. But

HEATHENISM. 9
while man thus bowed before the majesty of nature and
her now productive, now destructive powers, he forgot
that he carried in himself the revelation of much higher
things. He lost sight of the holiness of the Almighty
and the dignity of humanity ; and in relinquishing the
worship of a holy God, he lost the source of his own
holiness. In doing homage to the life of nature which
is at work in the lower world, he not only renounced his
-own higher destiny, but admitted inferior powers to
operate on himself; and, seeing no longer any evil in
that which formed his deepest degradation, he defaced
the remains of the divine image in himself, although
unable to extirpate utterly the sense of right and wrong,
the fear of retribution, and the belief in a future state.
But while we can trace in heathen idolatry that which
is common to all nations, that which is peculiar to each
is yet more striking. In the images, legends, and worship
of each national deity, we find reflected that peculiarity
of national character which is as mysterious in its origin
as the peculiarities of individuals, and which manifests
itself as much in the spiritual as in the corporeal deve
lopment of a people. And while great prophets, priests,
and religious lawgivers arose to stamp each national
faith, the gradually increasing intercourse of nations
originally isolated, produced, by mutual combinations,
new forms of worship. Yet all this is not ade
quate to explain the power of national religion over
the heathen; the unquestioning devotedness to the
gods of their fathers, and the subjugation of a whole
people to one faith and form of worship without a
doubt as to the existence of its deities, without relaxa
tion through lapse of ages, and without exception
through the exercise of private judgment. The

IO HEATHENISM.
immense sacrifices which each nation has made for
the sake of its gods, are a standing testimony against
the ancient sceptic (or Euhemeristic) and the modern
rationalistic theory, which would generate the whole
world of heathen deities out of the apotheosis of great
men by fiction or adulation, out of the fancy of in
dividual poets, or out of the craft of civil or spiritual
rulers. Had religious traditions no deeper origin
than this, their extent and dominion were indeed in
explicable. Powers objective or external to man ruled the spirit
of the nations who turned away from the adoration of
the true God. Nothing less than the influence of a i
world of spirits, seeking entrance into man, can explain
the spell of heathenism in its most irrational forms
and most burdensome requirements. They who lived
in the midst of heathenism and knew its fascinations,
had no other idea than that of the working of demons
in pagan rites. In this opinion the Jews and the
fathers of the Church agree. And if we throw aside
the strange traditions and interpretations with which
this opinion was associated, (for instance in the
apocryphal book of Henoch), the opinion itself is fully
borne out both by the Old Testament and by the New.
No doubt, the idol, as the apostle says, is nothing. The
influences of heathenism are, compared with the power
of God, as it were, nonentities. No divine power re
sides in the idol. The fantastic form of Apollo or
Bacchus, of Here or Isis, corresponds to no external or
objective essence. Nevertheless the heathen sacrifices
are sacrifices to demons; and the feasts upon these
sacrifices do bring those who offer them into real com
munion with demons. To this the same apostle points-

HEATHENISM. I I
when he speaks of the rulers of this world, — of the
spirits of wickedness in heavenly places (the nearest
to the earth), — and of the power of the prince of the
air; powers which had ruled over the heathen, and
from which Christians are freed in order to vanquish
them. And who that has any knowledge of history, or
understanding of antiquity, is rationalist enough to
regard all oracles and visions of old as empty dreams,
and the greatest, and sometimes most salutary acts of
ancient seers and sacrificers, as mere priestcraft ?
Certainly that ancient Jewish tradition is much nearer
the truth, according to which, when the Eternal divided
the nations and reserved His own inheritance, He gave
up the former to the subordinate superhuman powers,
the princes and potentates who had already departed
from Him, and from whom the heathen were destined
to learn their magic arts and idolatrous rites. — Deut.
xxxii. 8. [Sept.]
The spirit of the individual strives after a self-suffi
ciency to which it may not attain. Least of all was it
sufficient to itself in the times of which we speak. The
inward being of man, appointed to be entirely actuated
by the sanctifying Spirit of God, came under the power
of a spiritual world which was then not so exactly dis
tinguished from the nature of man as it now is. All
new or great ideas and impulses were ascribed to in
spiration, good or bad. Those sacrificers, pray-ers, and
prophets, who, long before the time of the Greek heroic
poets, guided the people and taught them the worship
of the gods, deduced their authority from intercourse
with invisible powers. The priests, distinct from the
bards, subsisted and exercised their rites, independent of
the gradually amplified traditions as to gods and heroes-

12 HEATHENISM.
Paul called Epimenides, who had stayed the pestilence
in Athens by his offerings and prayers, a prophet of the
Greeks (Tit. i. 12) while he would hardly have thus
designated either Homer or Hesiod. Homer knew the
Orphic mysteries, but he ventured neither to sing nor to
touch them. Side by side with the poetic theogony,
the ancient worship pursued its course. Although after
wards mingled, they were originally distinct. Hence
Plato could banish Homer from his republic, without
thereby offending against the worship of his country's
gods. The power of the ancient deities reaches far down
into the times of history, even among the Greeks, who
were the most inclined to emancipate private opinion
from the bondage of a common faith. Herodotus,
although certainly an exception to his age in his rever
ence for the past, still exhibits a thorough subjugation
of spirit under the ancient mythology. So long as the
individual remained undividedly a member of his nation
and an organ of the national spirit, there was no room
for the founding of the Church and the pouring out of
the Holy Ghost. But a different state of things long
preceded the appearance of Christianity.
When did this emancipation of the minds of men
from the trammels of heathen tradition take place ?
How did it make itself known ? and did it occur simul
taneously in all nations, or successively ?
Such an emancipation shows itself not so much in
reckless scepticism as in the attempt to find a substitute
for that which is manifestly on the wane. Whether by
a new system of philosophy or by a new religion, by
esoteric doctrines or by a reformed worship, in every
¦case it is proved that the old thing is shaken to its

HEATHENISM. 1 3
foundations, displaced and unprofitable ; and that the
spirits of men are capable and desirous of the new.
And it is not a little remarkable that this important
sign of the times appeared in various ancient nations at
one and the same sera.
In the sixth century before Christ, the Greek philo
sophy began its course. Thales, at the head of the
Ionians, and Pythagoras, were the first to construct, on
a speculative basis, a system of the world and of social
life. Grecian wisdom developed itself in physics and
ethics ; and it did so, because the decay of the power
of the gods demanded a cosmogony, and the decay of
their authority a philosophical moral code.
In the same century commenced that internal change
among the Jewish people, which has made their charac
ter and inclinations in all subsequent ages the opposite
of what they once were. Previously incurable in their
attachment to strange gods, and relapsing after each
deliverance and cleansing by the messengers of God,
into forms of idolatry, the witchery of which was
equalled only by their impurity, slavery, and horrors,
the Jews are seen, after the captivity in Babylon, so
entirely free from such inclinations and inaccessible to
such temptations, that the martyrs under the Maccabees
were prepared to suffer anything rather than consent
to acts into which their forefathers had rushed with
greediness. How was such a revolution wrought in
seventy years? It was not the mere consequence of
the divine chastisements. It is plain that, considering
the religious history of the heathen, this internal change
happened in connexion with a general change, not
confined to the Jewish nation.
For in the same century the way was paved for a

14 HEATHENISM.
reform of the ancient Persian religion by the system
of Zoroaster. The latter was not limited, like the
Grecian systems, to the schools of philosophy, but be
came, although a secondary phenomenon, the religion
of the people. The worship of Ormuzd was in part
indebted to Hebrew truths for its establishment. The
ascetic severity of the East apprehended the moral
contradiction in man's nature — the disruption of his
original being in a way of which the Greeks knew
nothing. This contradiction, extended to the objective,
pictured in the gigantic, and degraded to the earthly,
is the essence of the Parsic "dualism, in which, with all
its exaggeration of the conflict between light and dark
ness, the true idea of holiness was destroyed, its at
tainment was made impossible, and the reign of heathen
ism was prolonged, by the debasing of moral relations
to natural, and the transforming of them into mere phy
sical antagonisms.
In the same century also, the ancient worship of
Brahma gave way in India. What else is the import
of Gautama's efforts, and of the wonderful effect of his
doctrine ? Unsatisfied by the popular fables, Indian
sages sought by inward concentration of thought to
find out the Godhead ; and founded that system of pan
theistic contemplation which has radiated from India,
and next to Christianity and Mahomedanism has, with
its fascinating spell, exercised the mightiest influence
over the spirits of men. Complete retirement from the
external world, and silent repose disturbed by no sen
sual enjoyment, were the means by which it proposed
to invest the soul with power to apprehend the divine
essence, after an unutterable manner, in the depth of
man's own interior being, and thus attain to blessed

HEATHENISM. 1 5
union with the Godhead itself. Something it certainly
found in this way of world-denial and self-contempla
tion. But that something was no more than the spirit
of nature and of creature being ; and while it repre- \
sented this as the Godhead, it opened the door to all
that unclean mockery of divine operations, illumina
tions and consecrations, with which Buddhism is filled.
It is important to observe that this subtle pantheism —
the forerunner of the modern — was not an original,
but a secondary, religion.
Finally, the same century presents us with the symp
toms of dissolution in the most distant empire of the
East. At that time scientific philosophy began to sup
plant in China the sacred traditions and the political
constitution of which they formed the basis. This phi
losophy took two different directions ; one, through
Confucius, directed to practical morality ; another,
through Laotseu, entirely speculative, and not without
likeness to Persian and Egyptian doctrines. It is easy
to recognize these two forms of philosophy among the
Greeks — in Socrates and Pythagoras; and it is sur
prising to find the same phenomenon in two such
distant quarters.
In Egypt, indeed, the land of tradition, we observe
no such change. And the ancient religions of Italy
and Northern Europe seem also to have been unaffected.
Yet the facts already adduced suffice to prove that in
the sixth century b.c. a change passed upon heathenism,
similar to that shaking with which, between the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries after Christ,
Christians, Jews, Mahomedans, and even Hindoos, have
been visited in common.
A vast building, once shattered and deserted, sinks

1 6 HEATHENISM.
gradually but unavoidably into ruin. So was it with
heathenism from the date of its first great shock,
although its dissolution was not perfected for five cen
turies after Christ. The wants of the Greek and Roman
world were all preparations, direct or indirect, for the
introduction of Christianity. The great blank, which
nothing but the true worship of God and the pouring
out of His Spirit could fill up, became continually
wider. And both the philosophers and the superstitious
of the centuries preceding Christ, exhausted their efforts
in endeavouring to fill this blank.
Among all the religious substitutes to which men
turned in their perplexity, the mysteries of Bacchus
(Dionysos) were the most important. The unity of
God, the immortality of the soul, and its purification for
entrance into the Elysian fields, were leading ideas of
higher worth than all that public religion taught. Dark
as the origin and import, and defiled as the course of
these mysteries may have been, they were an indirect
prophecy of a better redeeming religion yet to come.
Among the Greeks all philosophy had for its object
the attainment of a philosophic life. No school was so
poor as to seek the mere increase of knowledge
without a moral regulation of the life. The Greeks
already had a remarkable moral inheritance in their
laws ; partly in the unwritten laws of hospitality, mari
tal fidelity, fear of the gods, justice and truth towards
men, and partly in the express provisions of their great
law-givers at the commencement of their historical
period. These pure laws stand remarkably contrasted
with impure myths ; these moral maxims with immoral
rites. And without doubt the moral element was older
than the immoral. A yet higher development of morals

HEATHENISM. I J
appears in Socrates, Plato, and the Stoics — morals, the
dignity of which is now the wonder of Christians as it
once was of Jews. It was possible for the heathen to
recover a measure of the knowledge of God and His
will. Were it not so, the Scriptures would not have
declared them to be without excuse. A careful
hearkening to the law planted in the conscience, a
catching of those scattered rays from the light of
the Word (Logos) by which no. man has been
wholly untouched, seems in the case of these men
observable. The opinion of the Jewish and Christian
teachers at Alexandria, that Plato drew instruction from
the Scriptures, or at least from the revealed truths de
posited with the Jews, if it has never been confirmed,
has never been proved unfounded. And why should
none of these truths have found their way to the schools
of Greece ? Why should they have escaped the notice
of Pythagoras and Plato during their travels through
the East in search of wisdom ? These men are silent
indeed on the subject. But Herodotus, who certainly
knew of the Jews as a nation, is equally silent regarding
the Jews.
Be this as it may, a new and higher degree of moral
apprehension, if not of moral life, is undeniable in
Socrates, Plato, and Zeno. Yet the agreement of their
doctrine with the Jewish and the Christian, is in many
points merely external, and associated with an internal
difference in principle and sentiment. And it is more
important to see this difference aright, than to observe
that similarity by which the ancient fathers of the Church
allowed themselves to be so often deceived. Nowhere
does Socrates or any of his successors found his four
cardinal virtues on the fear, the adoration, or the love
c

1 8 HEATHENISM.
of God. Plato, with his lofty ideas of political virtue
in the perfect "State," knows nothing of the holiness of
monogamy. The moral ideal of woman, which we find
in the proverbs of Solomon, is unknown to the philo
sophers of heathen antiquity. In vain do we seek in
the writings of Aristotle upon ethics, for either chastity
or mercy, (the two pillars of true holiness,) among the
manifold virtues of which they treat. To the Stoic,
mercy is one of those disturbances of the soul above
which the wise man should rise. And to the lives of
the greatest philosophers cleaves that indelible disgrace
of heathenism — unnatural lust — as a fearful testimony,
that the heathen world could not be redeemed, but
only judged, by its own improved knowledge in morals.
The Platonic and the Stoic schools adopted a con
siderable portion of the gravity of Eastern tradition.
On the other hand, the school of Epicurus was the
fullest development of the frivolity and impiety which
supplanted in Greece the dictates of conscience to
man ; gods dwelling remote from men and unconcerned
as to their fate ; the soul mortal ; the world the result,
and its course the effect, of chance ; pleasure, or rather
the comfortable absence of pain, and a revelry in
refined enjoyments, the chief end and highest virtue of
man. Such were the principles in which the spirit of
man, not only emancipated from the bondage of
mythology, but unfaithful to, and hardened in rebellion
against the testimony of higher truth in nature and
conscience, found its expression. This was unques
tionably the most popular of all philosophies. The
ancient virtues of the Greeks were almost exclusively
political; and they sank with the ancient civil polity,
when internal strife and foreign subjugation destroyed

HEATHENISM.

19

it. The Stoic and Platonic doctrines gave birth to
great individuals, — instance Plutarch's life of Dion. But
such men were few in number, and the general effect
of Stoicism was a most dangerous pride and a pharisaic
hardness of heart.
Such was already the condition of Greece, while
Rome yet exhibited exalted virtue and strength of
character, and being yet uninfected by the dissolution of
the ancient faith, preserved the power to succeed the
other nations in the dominion of the world. For one
hundred and seventy years the Romans worshipped
their gods without images. Dionysius of Halicarnassus
speaks with admiration of their still abiding fear of
God. A century before Christ, when no man trusted
the oath of a Greek, Polybius still found among the
Romans the strictest fidelity to an oath. And the
Roman statesmen were not blind to the danger of
religious and philosophical innovations. The twelve
tables forbade the worship of any strange gods not
•recognized by the state. The Bacchanalia, secretly
introduced, were suppressed wifh-wholesome severity.
But after the conquest of Greece, Greek literature and
infidelity pervaded Rome as rapidly as those of France
¦did Germany a century back. The fatal revolution
was already complete under the first Caesars. Marcus
Terentius Varro indeed still proposed to confine within
the schools the philosophical form of religion, i.e., the
unrestrained ratiocination upon the national gods. Yet
the general tone of society was so thoroughly infidel,
that Cicero, in his speech for Cluentius, alluded ironi
cally, in open court, to the punishments of the Hades,
as to a thing which no man any longer believed.
And all who laid claim to education spoke in like
c 2

20 HEATHENISM.
manner. If the seductive myths of Greece, which fur
nished a welcome excuse for every earthly crime in a
corresponding vice among the denizens of Olympus,
had wrought evil enough already, whence could come
courage to die for country and the righteous cause ?
whence justice in judgment ? whence mercy in rule ?
whence truth to promises ? since faith in immortality
was no more. Paul is not singular in his catalogue of
heathen crime. The historians, philosophers, and sati
rists of imperial Rome, — Tacitus, Seneca, Juvenal, —
published the same.
But this sad condition was not to be the conclusion of
man's history. The philosophers indeed of declining
Academy regarded nothing as true, save that nothing
certain could be known of anything. And this also
they held to be uncertain. Yet no sceptical acumen
can banish the desire of man after that truth which
is certain, and which can purify and exalt him, or
silence the longing of the soul for reconciliation with
God and for holy worship. A cry of distress from per
plexed and dishonoured humanity ascended, intelligent
or unintelligent, out of the breasts of thousands. The
wisest of the Greeks had said, that nothing but the
descent of a God could bring certainty to man. And,.
indeed, He who was to bring certainty, and with it
redemption, could not be of this world.
The dread of the invisible, the torment of a sense of
guilt, the thirst for revelation, drove the restless to
the acceptance of foreign deities, to initiation into the
mysteries of the East, and to every strange rite, which
made promise of redemption. Plutarch, in his work on
the morbid fear of the gods and on the denial of God,
pictures to us a spiritual condition, in which no way

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 21
to peace seems too hard. The mysteries of the Egyp
tian Isis and the Persian Mithras were transported to
the distant West. These rites, partly a demoniacal
caricature of the true Christian mysteries, appeared as
delusive precursors. The false messiahs of the Jews,
and the Mag? impostors {e.g. Simon the Samarite or
Apollonius of Tyana) of the heathen, preceded our Lord
and His apostles, or haunted their steps. These very
forms of delusion, and the greediness with which they
were received, betokened the approaching rise of the
Sun of truth. Happy were they who, in no small
number, met, in their desperate search, with the doc
trines of Moses and the worship of the synagogue,
which had been spread into all the cities of the empire
and gathered around them strangers who feared God.
On such persons lighted the dawn which ushered in the
day. But the features of heathenism became darker
and darker the nearer it approached to its extinction ;
and the more it came into collision with Christianity.
Its bright points were blotted out. A powerless,
antiquated, effete philosophy, associated with criminal
practices and with magical and necromantic arts, was
its last remnant.

CHAPTER II.

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
At that important aera, when the true worship, exer
cised and taught by the first fathers of mankind, was

22 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
nigh to extinction, yet subsisting, the call of God came
to Abraham, and was solemnly recognized by Melchi-
zedec, the representative of the pure original faith. It
was the first link in that long chain of divine revela
tions which thenceforth conducted down to the appear
ance of the Redeemer Himself. With it began the
wonderful condescension of God, "the possessor of'
heaven and earth," to a single race among whom He
would dwell. He is the God of all flesh, yet He does
not scruple to call Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. The unbelief of man stumbles at this, as
at every act of divine condescension, and imputes nar
rowness to the revelation of the Old Testament. But
a glance at the object of God in the choice of the
family of Abraham, is enough to remove the difficulty.
While the separated nations went their own ways, and
pursued them without divine intervention, one race was
to be selected and prepared as the instrument for a
future illumination and sanctification of all. This one
people was on this account favoured above all, not to
retain selfishly for itself the truth and communion of
God, but to be educated as the mediator of salvation .
to others.
The divine promise that in the seed of Abraham all \
nations of the earth should be blessed, warranted the
hope that mankind should not only recover their lost !;
blessings, but attain yet higher, already dimly per- ''¦
ceived, as the final end of their creation. And, un- v
doubtedly, this promise pointed to a kingdom of God f
upon earth, not in an invisible world of spirits. '
Paradise itself had been upon earth ; thus should '\
the earth be the theatre of the kingdom to come. \
Living men — nations of men — should be the blessed, \
inhabitants of the earth.

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 23
In order to the attainment of this end in the ful
ness of time, it was needful that at least one fraction
of humanity should be liberated and preserved from
mere absorption in nature, and from the dominion of
the demons who ruled the world. An abode purified
for, and devoted to, the true tradition and worship, a
place for the incarnation of the Saviour, a holy people
fitted to be His instrument, were to be prepared. Such
was the object of the law of Moses. It was given at
a period when the evils of heathenism first showed
their most dangerous features. It was given at a time
when the land selected by God for the centre of His
kingdom — the true Omphalos of the earth, as the
Greeks erroneously dasignated their Pythian oracle —
behoved to be purged of its nations. Else abominable
worship, like a pestilence, might thus have spread
thence over the whole world, even as subsequently the
law of God should in its own time go forth, and has
sone forth, from the same centre.
The Mosaic law, with its strict regulation and puri
fication of all the provinces of man's being, external and
internal, was drawn as a fence around the people called
to holiness — a dyke which the waves of ungodliness
and immorality should not overflow — a partition, indis
pensable till the time when the heathen should be en
lightened, although then to be taken away. It contained
so legibly the highest moral requirement, and the expres
sion of God's will to man, that even its concessions to
the hardness of men's hearts could not obscure it. It
was a complete school of obedience, and it introduced
the conscientious Israelite to the deepest knowledge of
himself. But this was not the only way in which it
was the schoolmaster unto Christ.

24 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
The multitude of its directions as to worship were
such as corresponded to the actual relation of man to
God at that time. Strange as it may appear to us in
this age, in which spiritual life is so disconnected from
external things, the Israelite really required to avoid
unclean meats and to offer bloody sacrifices, in order
to keep himself free from the overbearing influence of
nature. Yet this circumstance is in itself inadequate
to explain the great mystery of the Mosaic ceremonial.
The New Testament enables us to contemplate the sub
ject from another point of view. The outward appear
ance of man is the expression of his spiritual being ; nay,
the whole visible world is created as a symbol of the
invisible. And the same relation is observable be
tween the Mosaic rites, by which man was encompassed
in his approach to God, and that higher form of com
munion with Him, which was reserved for the redeemed
in Christ. Seen in this light, the law of Moses con
tains the whole fulness of divine truth; requires not
addition, but merely development and exposition ; and
is, in fact, God's treasure-house of mysteries laid up
for all eternity.
The ever-recurring relapse of the Israelites into
heathenism, and the very imperfect observance of the
law even at the best, afforded startling proof how
much Israel needed a Saviour, ere they could become
the salt of the earth, and the light of the world. The
many successive messengers by whom God delivered
and enlightened them, being both types of the coming
Saviour and awakeners of hope in His appearing,
directed that hope forward by the very imperfection
of their own achievements.
The priesthood was continued by uninterrupted in-

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 25
heritance. Next to it stood the offices of ruler and
prophet, once united in the lawgiver, and then to a cer
tain extent, in the judges, but afterwards separated.
The people, in desiring a king like the heathen around,
confessed thereby their own inability to bear, and to
be sanctified by, the presence of Jehovah Himself, their
invisible King. Hence the unwillingness of God to
grant their request, and yet the subsequent promise,
that the purpose of salvation should be accomplished
through the human king, the son of David, (i. Sam.
viii. ; ii. Sam. vii.). From that time forth God held out
as His people's hope, not only the promised prophet
like unto Moses, but also the Anointed One, who should,
in one person, and in an infinitely higher degree, unite
the characteristics of David and Solomon.
The relapse into idolatry under the kings was
aggravated by deeds of wickedness previously un
known. Prophets were raised up in those times of cor
ruption as witnesses against the apostasy. They were
persecuted by their people. Their blood called down
judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem. Their suf
ferings served as forebodings, that the greatest of all
prophets should have to suffer at the hands of His
own. The mystery of His sufferings and atoning
death, already pointed at in the history of David, was
revealed to the eye of Isaiah. The time was come
when, under the yoke of the then ruler of the world, the
better part of the Jewish people, the true Israel, was
destined, with and for the rest, to undergo sufferings
such as no former age had seen.
With Nebuchadnezzar, the head of the Assyro-Chal-
daic monarchy, began the series of those tyrants who
undertook to weld together into a unity the severed

26 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
nations, and make them the basis for a throne of uni
versal despotism. At that season did God reveal to-
Daniel the then future succession of the kingdoms of the-
world — the succession of the mystical beasts — the fearful
form of the last godless conqueror of the world — and
ultimately the kingdom of the Son of man and of the
holy people; thus filling up and combining into one
the various prophecies as to Messiah.
In this century, that in which judgment went forth
against the gods of the heathen, began quite a new
period in the national history of the Jews. Finally
delivered from the spell of idolatry, a cleansed rem
nant returned out of the Babylonian exile. In this
small theocracy, which had struggled into restored
existence, everything, and especially its inward life,
was changed. Once there stood opposed to the pro
phets and priests of demon-worship, the seers and
wonder-workers of God, as Elias. Now both were gone.
As the power of heathen darkness decayed (to such an
extent, that at a later period only a very small number
of Jews were perverted to heathenism by the cunning
and power of the Syrian Antiochus Epiphanes), so did
the mighty working of the spirit of prophecy disappear.
The canon of the holy Scriptures was closed ; and the
prophetic work was succeeded by the rise of a new
order, the Scribes, who, from the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah, undertook the preservation and exposition
of the sacred documents and traditions, and the office
of teacher in the new worship of the synagogue. In
their persons arose, side by side with the hereditary
priesthood, an entirely new and rival power, resting
upon learning and legal sanctity. By a natural pro
cess a theology gained ground, which, while it em-

T
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 2"]
braced the whole compass of divine tradition, was yef
a human product and filled with human additions.
The teachers of the too little known centuries succeed
ing the captivity, were exercised in deep and various
meditation, not unaided by Greek philosophy. And
the results of their labours are seen in the schools of the
Pharisees and Sadducees, and in the sect of Essenes —
phenomena respectively so similar to the Stoics, the
Epicureans, and the Platonists, that Josephus evidently
had the latter three in his eye when characterizing his
" Three Sects." If we rightly apprehend the essence
of these Jewish schools and their relation to Christianity,
we need not trouble ourselves with the question as to the
origin of their names, and the time of their appearance.
The names were probably assigned to them in the
third century before Christ. The sects themselves were
the offspring of an earlier period. (Compare Isaiah
xxix. 13, and xxii. 13).
The school of the Sadducees is that of least import
ance as regards Christianity. Those spirits, who at an
earlier period would have been most easily seduced to
idolatry, yielded themselves, at a later, to the influence
of the sceptical and annihilative schools of philosophy,
and became freethinkers — free at once from idolatrous
mythology and from the fear of the true God — similar
to the modern Deists — a class of persons of whom the
more ancient times knew nothing. Few of the popular
teachers, however, appear to have been of this class.
The Sadducees valued little the esteem and consent of
the people. They formed a party among the rich and
powerful; and their chief influence arose from their
connexion with the Herodian dynasty, which accom
modated itself to heathenism in order to retain the

28 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
support of Rome. To Christianity they were and
continued to be strangers. They disappear from Jewish
history with the destruction of Jerusalem. The Tal
mud sometimes speaks of them as heretics and Epi
cureans. We see clearly from the New Testament, that at the
time of Christ almost all the chairs of instruction, at
least in Judea, were filled by Pharisees. A hundred
and fifty years afterwards the whole traditions of the
expounders of the law were collected into a written
form in the Mishnah. They are the complete expres
sion of the Pharisaic forms of thought and instruction.
And yet in general, the name Pharisee was not extended
to all whose principles were orthodox. It was applied
properly to those who signalized themselves by scrupu
losity and rigid adherence to orthodoxy and cere
monies. The Talmud does not always speak in com
mendation of the Pharisees. Yet it is pervaded by the
same spirit in which they acted at the time of Christ.
They were at the close of the Jewish polity the spiri
tual dictators of the people, although the reins of exter
nal government were for the most part in the hands of
the Sadducees. And they cherished in the people that
feeling which found its vent in repeated risings against
the government of Rome, and ultimately brought about
the destruction of Jerusalem.
In connexion with this, the measure of recognition
which Christ and Paul accorded to the Pharisees is
very remarkable. Christ acknowledged that their disci
ples wrought miracles. " The Scribes and Pharisees,"
said He to His followers, " sit in Moses' seat ; all,
therefore, whatsoever they command you, that observe."
And on the occasion of the division between the Sad-

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 29
ducees, who occupied the highest places, and the Pha
risees, whom they oppressed, Paul unhesitatingly takes
the part of the latter, who held fast the resurrection of
the dead as the great hope of God's people. Nay,
he goes so far, in recognizing the truth as being with
them in contradistinction to the Sadducees, that he
even overlooks, for a moment, the question of faith or
unbelief in Messiah already come (Acts xxiii, 6).
And, did this not suffice, the prolonged attachment of
the first Christian churches to the Mosaic rites were proof
sufficient how completely Christianity grew, not out
of the Essenes, but on the soil of orthodox Judaism.
That which was blame-worthy in the Pharisees did
not consist in false doctrines : for they possessed the
truth. The dogmas of the fall of man, of evil inclina
tions in the fallen, of human liberty, of capacity and
incapacity for good, of the worth of faith and good
works, of the state of souls after death, of the resur
rection and kingdom of glory — all points of Christian
theology, were objects of inquiry and disputation
among the Scribes, whose remarks on these subjects,
although often under strange forms, contain much that
is deep and important. But herein lay their error, that
they thought that they had eternal life in the possession
of the Scriptures, and in the right form of knowledge.
The more destitute they were of the Holy Spirit,
the more firmly did they cling to the letter of the com
mandment ; and the more they sought therein the sub
stitute for the absent divine life, the more did they fall
into the error of ranking the weightiest commandments
of God with the most trivial rules of men, and ulti
mately of setting the latter above the former, as the
unenlightened always do. All truths, especially that

30 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
as to Messiah, were apprehended and taught rightly
in the letter, yet entirely after the flesh, so that the
most sacred doctrines were perverted to evil.
The type of David, with which the name Messiah
connects itself, was the foundation of those Pharisaic
ideas of the Anointed One, which spread through the
people, and kept them ever in expectation. They re
garded Messiah merely as a warrior, conqueror, and
ruler to come, similar to the son of Jesse, only with
more splendid success, and more enduring power.
As the resurrection was held to be merely a repetition
of mortal life, so was Messiah only a repetition of
His forerunner David. The understanding of His
divine dignity and of the meaning of His sufferings (if
He were to suffer at all) was hidden from them. Nay, the
promise of the prophet like Moses was generally applied
to the expected precursor Elias ; so that the antitype of
the lawgiver was placed beside the Anointed, instead
of being seen to be identical with Him.
The exposition of the law should have awakened the
desire of redemption, and that of the prophets should
have furnished the true picture of the Saviour. The
Pharisaic teaching did the very opposite. It abused
the law to feed the pride of holiness, and the prophets
to foster fanaticism — the one the inward corrupter, and
the other the outward destroyer, of Judaism. Yet under
the rule of the Pharisees we find, in no small number,
the true Israelites, the poor in spirit, who waited for
the consolation of Israel, and received the Gospel.
Of these persons, human narratives, which leave the
precious things also in Church History covered up and
unnoticed, make no mention. But the New Testament
shows us that the generation which should receive

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 3 1
Christ, the holy remnant, was even then ripened in
preparation by the secret operation of God. A re
markable love of order and law, accompanied with a
deep reverence for the Holy One, and an ardent zeal
in His worship, distinguished the better part of the
Jews. In the bosom of orthodox Judaism there lay a
domestic life so pure, noble, and tender, that it could
yield such a person as the Holy Virgin, and could
furnish an atmosphere in which the Son of God could
grow up sinless from childhood to manhood. Among
those who bowed before holy tradition and the autho
rity of the teacher, that spirit of prophecy revived,
which, in Mary and Elizabeth, in Simeon and Hannah,
made known the appearing of the Saviour.
In Palestine the ancient inclination to assimilate
with the heathen, had been supplanted by hatred and
contempt for all who were not Jews, as the natural man
in escaping from one error always falls into its oppo
site. The Samaritans, who retained their reverence
for the patriarchs and the lawgiver, and their hope in
the "Converter," and who, free from the pride of the
Pharisees, showed themselves so susceptible for Chris
tianity, were avoided as infidels. The hopes of the
Jews pointed not to an enlightening and sanctifying
of the nations, but to a tyranny over them. Efforts
were indeed made to win heathen over to the worship
of the true God. But the few converted were infected
with Pharisaic errors. And the inhabitants of Pales
tine appear to have had no peculiar pleasure in
the numerous devout or god-fearing Greeks (Acts
xxiii, 43 ; xvii, 4,) who, in other lands, gathered
around the synagogues without adopting the Mosaic
ceremonial.

32 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
Quite a different spirit prevailed where the Jews
could not persist in their segregation, and came in
contact with the better elements of Greek and Oriental
heathenism. The history of the world points out the
circumstances which combined to effect this, especially
in Alexandria, the second metropolis of Judaism. The
schools of instruction in the city of the Ptolemies, (to
which the best of the Greek literature and philosophy
was transmitted, and where the doctrines of ancient
Egypt and those of the East, opened since the time of
Alexander, also found their admirers and expounders,)
could not fail to obtain influence over the Jewish in
habitants, by the attraction of their learning and their
thoughtful severity.
The translation of the holy Scriptures into Greek
under Ptolemy Philadelphus, and the adoption of that
translation by the synagogue, were the first great steps
towards the approximation and amalgamation of the
Jewish and Greek elements. The relinquishment of
the holy tongue and the consecration of the Greek,
broke through the previous seclusion in which Jewish
education in Palestine had been studiously kept. And
the translation of the Pentateuch itself betrays a
marked reverence for Greek wisdom, in the constant
endeavour to exclude all that might conflict with the
Platonic conceptions of Deity. At the same time the
awakened spirits among the Jews obtained free en
trance to the whole cycle of instruction among the
Greeks. And there could not fail to be many among
them who availed themselves of the school of the
grammatists and philosophers, in order to perfect them
selves as propagators of a Greco- Judaic theosophy.
In short the persuasion gained ground that the deep

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 33
moral elements of the Greek systems were completely
identical with the truths of divine tradition. The
Platonic mysticism, the Stoic morality, the Pythagorean
manner of life, presented themselves to the deceived
eye, as noble reflections of the same divine truth of
which the records of revelation are the depositories.
And what could be more welcome to the Jew who
claimed citizenship among the educated, than the de
claration that the much extolled wisdom of the Greeks
was identical with the despised doctrines of barbarian
Jews, and the representation of the latter as being the
more ancient of the two — the original from which the
former was derived ?
While the orthodox in Palestine, in their proud ex-
clusiveness, regarded Greek and Jewish wisdom as
irreconcilable, the Alexandrians, with inconsiderate and
indiscriminating admiration for that which was foreign,
regarded them as identical. We cannot trace the
first budding of the latter opinion. From the alle
gorical commentary on the Pentateuch by Aristobulus,
in the time of Ptolemy Philometor, one hundred and
seventy years before the time of Philo and that of
Christ, we may conclude that it was then pretty fully
developed. One might imagine that we have lost many
means of judging in the matter. Yet we have not
really done so ; because the undeniable want of ori
ginality in Philo justifies the supposition that he would
repeat what his predecessors had excogitated.
The peculiarity of this school was not its mystical or
allegorical exposition, (for all faithful Jews acknowledged
a hidden meaning in the Scriptures,) but the rejection
of the historical and literal meaning, as if inconsistent
with the mystical, and the abuse of allegory to per-

34 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
suade both Greeks and Jews that the recondite
import of the sacred records was identical with Pla
tonic wisdom. The most attractive thing is the com
bination of these two elements in Philo's doctrine of
virtue. It much surpasses that of the Greek philo
sophers in moral weight, and is, indeed, the best
which mankind, before Christ, had produced upon
ethics. Philo adopts the four cardinal virtues of the
Socratic and Stoic schools. But he combines with
them that which the heathen omitted — purity, faith,
hope, and love. Even here, however, we find hetero
geneous things put together, as at a later period in the
morals of the Scholastics. And the same is yet more
observable in Philo's dogmatic speculations. According
to them the Platonic deity, the " essential existence ''
(ro ovtojs dv) is one with the Eternal who revealed His
mysterious name to Moses. The Alexandrian transla
tion renders the sacred name of Jehovah "the
existing one" (6 <lw). Matter, out of which, accord
ing to Plato, the Fashioner of the world framed the
visible creation, is the earth yet without form and
void, of which the Scriptures speak. The higher
world of the Platonic ideas, which contains those
eternal schemes of things, that are shadowed forth in
the formation of earthly things, is identical with the
angelic world of the Bible. Only through such mediating
spiritual beings or powers could the Infinite spiritual
and unnameable, consistently with His dignity, operate
upon the lower finite substance of the world. The
starry hosts are choirs of the highest and purest
angels. The music of the spheres is that which Moses
heard, and which was his meat and drink for forty
days upon the Mount. The human soul, which Moses

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 35
represents as the breath of God, proceeded, according
to Plato, out of that world of ideas, from which it
brought with it its noblest reminiscences and its unsatis
fied aspirations. The souls which allowed themselves
to be entangled with the love of things below, were
constrained to come down out of the blessed realm of
the angels into the prison darkness of the earthly body,
as into a grave, until they should on the completion of
their cleansing reascend into the sether, it may be to
descend again to new incorporation.
This strange mixture of two opinions, in themselves
at variance, is most striking in Philo's teaching as
to the Logos, that central object of Jewish and Christian
theology. The deity of Plato, hidden in immov
able rest beyond the limits of reality {ovala) creates
and operates not immediately, but through his world-
formative understanding (vovg Koapoiroibg), at once the
sum of the divine ideas and the vivifying principle of
the world. Herein is naturally found the Wisdom of
the Proverbs, the agent in creation, whom the Eternal
had by Him ere the world was. And the same analogy
is extended to the Mediator, the revealer of God in the
the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord.
This mystery is adverted to throughout the Old
Testament in terms which must strike the most un
observant. He who appeared to the Patriarchs, and
who, as God — Jehovah — held converse with them, is yet
distinct frbm Jehovah. He is called the messenger of
Jehovah, and yet himself bears all the names of the
Eternal. In a word, the inquiring Israelite could not
avoid knowing a second divine Person distinct from,
yet one with, the first. Nay, the holy traditions and
learned commentaries of the Jews even mentioned the
d 2

36 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
" Word of Jehovah," by which term the Chaldean trans
lations, composed for the synagogues of Judaea, desig
nate the manifested God, the Mediator of all revelation.
He is as undoubtedly personal as the other angels
who appeared. The popular faith could only regard.
Him as a person, whether His true divinity was clearly
or darkly discerned. And none but a person could,.
like Wisdom in the Proverbs, have his delights with the
sons of men and seek after the erring in love. On the
other hand, the Platonic Nus {voiis) is impersonal.
Although of divine substance, it is not distinguished, as
being another, from the eternal unity (/lovae). This
indelible contradiction between the two views pervades
the whole expressions of Philo in describing the Logos.
His expressions divide themselves into two classes —
the one suited to the sum of the divine ideas, the other
to the prince of divine messengers. The name Logos,.
with its twofold meaning, viz., Understanding and Word
— immanent thought, and thought coming into manifes
tation — is one well adapted to combine the incongruous
into an apparent unity. But the foreign philosophic,
and the popular biblical conceptions are so very diverse,.
that there can seldom be a doubt which of them the
wavering eclectic really will express. Only so much
of Philo's doctrine on the Logos as is actually based on
the Old Testament is recognizable in the New. And
this was nothing peculiar to the Alexandrian philosophy,
but the common property of the Jewish faith. Philo
expected a new manifestation of the Logos at the Mes
sianic aera, as of old at the Exodus. But he did not
expect Him as being Messiah, whom he regarded
as a mere human hero answering to the prophecy of
Balaam. Philo seems to shrink from speaking distinctly

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 37
-of Messiah and His kingdom, lest the jealousy of the
Romans might be awakened. Of belief in the incar
nation of the Son there is, in his writings, and in the
whole Jewish theology, not a trace. The Scribes knew
that God had a Son, but that He should appear in per
son as the son of David was a truth hidden from their
eyes. Side by side with these Alexandrine- Judaic theories,
we find the attempt to carry out a manner of life con
formable to them, in the ascetic societies of the Egyptian
Therapeutae and in the sect of the Essenes in Palestine.
The name Therapeutae designates those who labour after
both the healing of the soul and the constant worship of
the Godhead. We hold it to be established that such
persons were actuated by the views expressed in Philo's
writings ; and it is extremely probable that their
esoteric tenets were in the main those which after long
abeyance re-appear in the writings of the Cabbalists,
the Jewish mystics of the middle ages. Philo's work
on a contemplative life informs us of the ascetic frater
nity at the lake of Maeris, the pre-christian monasteries
of Judaism. The description of these Therapeutae
must have astonished the Platonic teachers among the
heathen, by exhibiting realized the final end of their
boldest efforts as contemplative philosophers. It also
resembles the description of the Indian penitents, in
their continual aspiration after union with, and absorp
tion into, Godhead. And, strangely enough, the
Christian historian Eusebius, carried away by the sub
limity of such a life, appropriates the Therapeutae as
his own. He regards them, erroneously, as the first
Christian Church in Egypt, and Philo himself as a dis
ciple of Christ. Similar, but less pardonable, is the

38 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
error of the moderns, who, equally persuaded of
the identity of these phenomena, merely explain
differently their external relations ; deriving the first
Christians from the pre-christian mystics of Palestine,.
i.e. from the Essenes ; and imagining that the Apostolic
writers borrowed from Philonic sources. This view
has, sometimes with learned gravity, sometimes with
the acerbity of malicious unbelief, been so often main
tained, that it demands here the more serious
examination. No one can deny that the Christian Church, while it
has confessedly adopted and preserved much doctrine
from the Pharisees, puts one much in mind of the
Essenes in its life. And why should not, after a schism
in the Jewish people, a part of the truth committed to
it, be discernible among the Essenes ? Although hete
rodox, they surpassed the possessors of orthodoxy
in their exhibition of a purified life; as it has been, alas!
often the case in Christendom, that the sounder doctrine
has been found with the dominant priesthood and
teachers, and the purer life with a sect. And the very
office of the Christian Church was to inherit, appro
priate, and deliver from its mummy-like inclosure, to
expand and to carry out in practice, the whole truth
already professed by any of the Jews.
If we do not err, the whole Therapeutic-Essene effort
arose from the desire to recall and maintain the ancient
prophetic inspiration and sincere devotion long sought
in vain in the synagogue, in the daily worship of the
temple, and in the great feasts of the people. In by
gone times there had been already settlements of the
sons of the prophets, (falsely styled "schools of the
prophets " by the rationalistic Jews and Christians of.

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 39
later centuries,) in which were found the exercise of
the prophetic gift, and a peculiar solemnity of religious
services. These ancient institutions seem to have been
the model for the mystics subsequent to the captivity,
and the pattern which the Essenes strove to copy. And
who can say that their efforts were altogether in vain,.
and that there was nothing divine in the prophetic
gift which Josephus reports to have been among
them ? If, as is possible, though not certain, the
<f Wisdom of Solomon," was really a fruit of the mystic
school, it would prove that not only divine illumination
but almost inspiration was granted to some of its mem
bers. Inquiries into the mystical sense of Scripture
formed a favourite occupation of the contemplative.
Indeed, the thirst after such knowledge was in them a
prophetic impulse. Nor is it wonderful, that, as the i
time of fulfilment drew near, and the appearing of
Christ was about to make plain long hidden mysteries,
glimpses of divine light led the way to fuller convictions
among those who searched the Scriptures.
Much in the mystic teaching as to Messiah had this
character. Its basis lay not in the Davidic, but in the
Mosaic type. A glorious repetition of the lawgiver's his
tory was, and that not without reason, looked for. And
this expectation came much nearer the truth, than the
Davidic ideas of the Pharisees ; because the type itself
and the condition of those who embraced it, gave less
room for fleshly pictures of the future. Nay, the very
fables with which the mystic fancy dressed out the life
of Moses, are often gleams of light indicative of that
which came to pass in Christ, the great prophet —
myths which bore the same relation to the reality that
Darhelia do to the true sun, without whose presence in

40 THE OLD TESTAMENT iSND JUDAISM.
the heavens their appearance, although they are but
optical delusions, were impossible.
The esoteric doctrine of the mystics contains ap
proaches to an acknowledgement of the adorable Trinity.
The Legos they held to be the Son of the Eternal
Father, to be His eternal Wisdom, equal with Him, and
the prototype for the creation of man. It were still
more striking, if they had also known beforehand, that
the Logos himself should appear as Saviour. But the
scarcity of our information renders it impossible to
determine whether they received this light before or
after the actual appearing of Christ.
Yet such approximations to truth are completely out
weighed by the errors associated with them, which pre
clude all identification of the mystics with the nascent
Church of Christ. And he does not know Christianity
who can regard it as no more than the disclosure of
Essene mysteries, and the Church as no more than an
enlargement of the Essene order. We have already
shown how completely the Church at the beginning was
rooted in orthodox Judaism. From the latter how
ever, the Alexandrian school was separated by a wide
chasm — namely, by the schismatic and blamable
position taken by the Egyptian Jews in the erec
tion of the illegal temple at Leontopolis. And the
Essenes departed yet further in rejecting bloody qffer-
ings. They sent presents to the sanctuary ; but they
were themselves forbidden entrance. They had a per
ception how inadequate were the Mosaic offerings — a
longing for and persuasion of something higher. But
they prematurely forsook the communion of Israel's
worship before that higher thing appeared, and in doing
so, followed a course the very opposite of that adopted

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 41
by the first Christians. They thus renounced their par
ticipation in the blessings of the Jewish polity, and were
justly regarded by the strict Israelites as departed
wanderers. Their holy feasts of bread and salt, and
the yet more solemn nightly symposia of the Thera
peutae, accompanied with lights and hymns, with mystic
discourse and dance, were intended to supply the place
of the Mosaic ritual, and especially of the Passover ; and
were an abortive attempt to effect what nothing but
Christian worship could. In a very different spirit does
Christ always point His disciples to the lawful sanctuary
in Jerusalem, which He Himself had not shunned, but
recognized as His Father's house, and which, instead of
subverting, He had cleansed from defilement.
Moreover, in the tenets of the Jewish mystics
was heretical matter which infected the whole system,
and clearly distinguished it from Christian truth. The
Philonic conception of the creation is false. However
disguised, it is in substance this, that spiritual beings
have come into existence by emanation, while matter
has not been created by God out of nothing, but is self-
existent, and the fountain of all evil. For although
they were spirits who sinned, yet their sin consisted
only in inclination towards matter. In themselves they
continue healthy, being of divine substance. And in re
treating from matter they recover their entrance into
their celestial abode. Every doctrine of emanation
carries with it the stain of Pantheism, that fundamental
error of the heathen. Every doctrine of pre-existence
sets aside the fact, of pregnant importance, that all men
are one in origin and in fall. The record of man's
fall is with Philo necessarily a mere symbol. The resur
rection of the body was openly denied by the mystic

42 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM.
school of Alexandria. And the same false ideas as-
to matter, which necessarily led to this, also rendered the
Essenes unable to believe in the Incarnation. While
the Pharisees were blind to Christ's divinity, the Essenes
were so to His humanity. Thus mystic IJudaism pre
sented, on the most essential questions, the very oppo
site of Apostolic Christianity. The Essenes wearied
themselves with the endeavour to solve the most im
portant of all problems for a pious soul, viz., the combi
nation of a contemplative with an active life. But the
solution, reserved for the Church of Christ, was denied
to them ; and their principles were such as could not
but operate most injuriously upon both theoretical and
practical ethics. They were conscious of the fallen
condition of man, but they sought for sin, like the
heathen, in the wrong place — only in the corporeal
region. Their efforts to heal the evil left the chief
seat — the spirit of man — untouched ; and therefore
failed. The unclean conscience remaining in them im
pelled them to more and more extravagant ascetic
exercises, which only fostered pride in veiling corrup
tion. And, regarding matter as essentially unclean — as
a thing to be abolished instead of being consecrated
and used aright — they produced, instead of a life well
pleasing to God, a splendid forgery of holiness.
The same phenomena, indeed, appeared in- the
Church. But they did so, not in Christ and his
disciples, but in the teachers of error at Colossae. And
Paul's condemnation of these men was a virtual con
demnation pronounced by the Christian Church against
the Essenes, and the practical vindication of the former
from the charge of identity with the latter. The true kin
dred of the Essenes are to be found, not in apostolic

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JUDAISM. 43.
churches, but in the Elkesaites or Gnostic Ebionites of
the second century, who appeared exactly in those two
countries which had been the abodes of Jewish mysti
cism. The Essenes and the Therapeutae disappeared,
their best members entering the Christian Church.
Not till the fourth century, when Gnosticism was a
thing gone by, did the ascetic form of religion pre
vail in the Church itself. Then, indeed, it generated
in Egypt and Syria, the scenes of former asceticism,
the monasticism of the East as a kindred phenomenon.
But primitive Christianity breathed a very different
spirit ; it was as little the offspring of Essene rigorism
as of Pharisaic pride or Sadducean scepticism.
They must be superficial observers indeed, who find
nothing important or true in the Jewish theology.
Carefully examined, it yields treasures of truth most
diligently handled. The Christian faith has nothing to
fear from such a discovery, as if a doubt were thereby
cast on the divine origin of the Gospel. If the Old
Testament contains the whole truth in a latent form, it
were strange if the Jewish theology did not contain the
greater part of it, and if the spiritual conflicts and reli
gious zeal of centuries had been fruitless for good. To
reproach Christianity with the fact that its doctrines to
a great extent existed already in the synagogue, were
to believe that Christ had come chiefly to publish new
doctrines to the world, and not to fulfil the law, to put
away sin, and to bestow the Holy Spirit. No doubt the
schisms of Israel gave rise to perversions of the truth.
The various Messiah theories of the various parties
are a striking monument of truth, no longer maintained
as a harmonious unity. Holy traditions subsisted. But,
for those who held them, they were little better than

44 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
dead propositions, apprehended by flesh, destitute of
power to sanctify. The studies and efforts of the true
Israelite were rather thirst than anything to quench it.
Though more enlightened than the heathen, he could
only put the question which the redemption in Christ had
to answer for both alike. All speculations as to the
divine promises failed to reach the mystery of God
liness — God manifest in flesh. The whole Messiah
theories of Jewish theology were silent as to the true
incarnation of the Word. The condescension of the
Son to assume the nature of man is that act of divine
love, which no human investigation could compass
beforehand; which can be believed, known, and de
clared, only after its accomplishment; and prior to
which nothing could have satisfied the disappointed
longings of the faithful in Israel.

CHAPTER III.
CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

At length when the world and men's hearts were
fully prepared, when spiritual distress and expectation
had reached their climax, Jesus Christ came, whom
the Gospels describe, whom we worship as the Head
of the Church.
His appearing, extraordinary in every respect, is
especially so, from the difficulties which it presents to
the historical inquirer. No narrative is so perfectly

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. 45
satisfactory and conclusive for one class of persons, and
so perplexing and suggestive of sceptical doubt for
another, as the biography of our Lord. There must be
a reason for this, and it is not difficult to discover.
Christ will not suffer those men who will not obey
Him, to comprehend Him with the understanding. He
could not do so, without denying Himself. He will not
surrender His doctrine or the offices of His house, as a
prize to classical attainment and critical acumen. The
understanding of the prudent shall not have the glory
of doing that which [the Holy Spirit has been sent to
effect. Therefore has so little been written of the
sacred history and doctrine ; and even that in such a
form, that the understanding of those who do not walk
in the light finds obscurities and stumbling-blocks, ex
hausts itself on apparent contradictions, and stumbles
with all its pretended sincerity. Thus does the
Lord take the wise in their own craftiness. Yet is the
sacred record the most certain of all records. No other,
be it confirmed with a thousand oaths, has the same
continual divine confirmation. All other heroes and
teachers of antiquity have died, and continue dead.
Christ alone lives ; and His Church is as immortal as
He. He works in her as her ever present Head. She
knows Him as the same whom the fourfold Gospel pre
sents to us. His life is continued in her, He acts and
speaks in the midst of her by His Spirit, as He once did in
person on earth. All that Scripture says of Him becomes
intelligible in the Church. For her it is living truth,
and therefore perfect certainty. The history of Christ
is written for the Church. No book of the New Testa
ment, especially no Gospel, was written for unbelieving or
ignorant persons. The sacred books were committed to

46 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
those churches which the labours of living witnesses had
brought into being. They are the repetition, combina
tion, confirmation, completion of that which had been
orally declared for the edifying of the Church of God.
But this declaration, and its committal to writing, were
both guided by profound wisdom and depth of purpose.
The Gospels are a work, not only of inspiration, but
also of the greatest human care. They are written by
faithful hands, and afford every security against misre
presentation. Yet the inquiries and representations of
their authors were not intended to. supply what the
adversaries demand and indeed then demanded. The
evangelists did not, in the choice or management of
their matter, inquire what the criticism of apostates
might approve, but what would most enlighten the
children of God and carry them on to perfection.
The history of the apostolic age, shows, (if we may
anticipate so far), that the nascent Church went through
three phases — the Jewish — the Gentile — and the two
combined. To these correspond three forms of the
preaching of Christ, — viz., the Gospel to the faithful in
Israel ; that to the newly formed heathen congregations ;
and that to the Church composed of both, settled into an
independent unity, and going on to perfection. Such
three forms were to be expected, and we find them in the
writings of Matthew, Luke, and John. Mark's Gospel
is the oldest and shortest, the common basis for those
of Matthew and Luke. The silence of an earlier evan
gelist as to things of importance which appear in the
writings of a later — e.g., as to the discourses in John, —
would justly excite remark in a document of profane his
tory. But in this case it is otherwise; because it can be
proved that this silence arose not from ignorance or

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. 47
doubt, but from wise intention. It is undeniable that
Christ, during the forty days after His resurrection, im
parted to His disciples, then endowed with increased
capacity, most important things, which took deep root
in their hearts. Yet the Gospels dismiss the subject
with a few lines. Another and fifth Gospel could well
have been written, containing the mysteries of the king
dom which Christ then communicated to the apostles.
Here, therefore, the silence has been evidently
intentional. The same was the case with the acts and
discourses related for the first time by John, and, with
the history of our Lord's childhood. So great was the
reserve and caution of these writers. The recklessness
of anti-christian criticism is the complete opposite of the
delicate reverence and prudence with which the holy
writers handled holy things.

Christ was, in His birth, no natural fruit of that tree
which had its root in Adam. If He had been so, He
could have been no redeemer. He is not a human
person, raised to divine dignity, but a divine person,
the eternal Son of God, who has assumed the human
nature into the unity of His person. As God, being one
wifh the Father, He was one with us as man;
partaker of our flesh and blood, veritable man, born of
the substance of a mortal and fallible mtoher. The mys
tery of Godliness lay not therein, that the infinite be
came finite. This the Pantheist may admit. But it lay
therein, that God was manifested in flesh— the Holy
One in the nature, not of man as he was in Paradise.
but of man as he now is. He was exempt from original
sin ; for He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. In Him

48 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
was no perversion of the human will, no disobedience
against God's law, no captivity under Satan's rule.
From the beginning to the end of His life, His human
will was conformed to that of His Father. Yet it is
equally true that the Son of God took that nature
which He had to redeem, and which therefore needed
redemption, andthat, when He went to the Father, He
brought back that which had been lost. This is the
miracle of His incarnation, that He adopted the fallen
nature of man lying under curse, into the unity of His
Person, and in that nature realized perfect holiness.
The Son of God in His incarnation continued to be
what He was: He renounced none of His divine attri
butes, and yet He renounced the visible exercise of
them all. On earth He never acted as the Almighty
and Omniscient. Herein lay His emptying of Himself.
His whole life on earth was a walk of faith. He who
was God was man. His life, the life of God, was the
life of a man. Its holiness, infinitely surpassing that
of the unfallen angels, was not by force of divine attri
butes, but the fruit of constant faithfulness and obe
dience. In every aspect the Gospels confirm the
reality of His manhood. In His childhood, He grew in
wisdom as in years. He adopted into Himself every
true and pure element to be found in His family and
friends, in the traditions and the life of Israel. The
holy Scriptures and the services of His Father's house
were His spiritual nourishment. By His faithfulness
and simplicity He was enabled to separate between
good and evil, and was preserved from the influence of
the latter. The guiltless in the midst of the guilty, He
pleased God by counting their guilt His own. He re
pented with and for His people. He went before

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. 49
them in hearty confession of the common sin. When
John came preaching the baptism of repentance, Jesus,
the great penitent, came to him, and although Himself
without sin, submitted to his baptism.
At length was that man found on whom the good
pleasure of God could rest, on whom the Holy Ghost
could descend to abide. In Him sanctified human
nature became the temple of the Holy Ghost.
Though all His previous life had been a trial, now
began His greatest temptations. These He met, not
with the shield of omniscience or the sword of
omnipotence, but with the same weapons which are
given to His disciples, with the shield of faith and
the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of
God. He conquered in a more dangerous position
than that of the first man. His conflict was no mere
semblance. The greater the resistance to temptation,
the severer the struggle. He was tempted in all points
like unto us, yet without sin. He was not indeed
tempted as the servant of sin is, who is vanquished ere
the fight begins. But He was tempted as the regene
rate is, whose will is pure and whose heart is occupied
by God.
Hitherto He had done no miracles. They began at
His baptism with the Holy Spirit. He said expressly
that He did the deeds by the Spirit of God. They were
not immediate effluences of the omnipotence of His
divine nature, but works of faith ; and His power to
remove sickness and death, the fruits of sin, lay in His
constant obedience to the counsels and guidance of His
Father, in His anointing as man, and in His compassion
with those who suffer.
As with His temptations, so with His sufferings.

50 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
He bore them not by omnipotence ; for thus he could
not have obtained for His Church the power, and im
posed upon her the duty, to bear them after His ex
ample. As His life drew near its close, they attained
their climax, both bodily and mental. Having taken
the nature, He experienced the sorrows, of the whole
race ; and, by virtue of sympathy in its most real sense,
did He, the only healthy member of the whole, feel
those pangs to which the rest were more or less in
sensible. He bore the displeasure of God against the
world. In Him were the sins of the world judged. In
submitting to this judgment, He became the perfect
sacrifice. And by the execution of the curse upon Him,
was not only the guilt expiated, but the sin abolished.
Christ entered, through His resurrection, upon a
manner of existence to which man had never before
been elevated. He was the subject of a divine act till
then unknown. He received a glory such as unfallen
Adam never had. He became head of a new raee,
which stood no longer under Adam, nor was subject to
the consequences of the fall. Raised above all heavens,
the Son of man came into the immediate presence
of the Father, and became High Priest in Heaven,
mediating, for His Church, all those blessings which
He had Himself received from the Father. Only
for His disciples' sake did He appear for forty days
on earth after His resurrection. After His ascension
came the Comforter whom He had promised. Then
the Christian Church appeared, as the dwelling-place
of the Holy Ghost — the body of the glorified Head —
composed of the elect out of all nations, and placed so
high in origin, dignity, destination, and sanctity, as to
obliterate the distinction between Jew and Gentile.

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. SI
Such acts of God far exceeded all the expectation
of Israel.
He had completely submitted to the law of Moses,
and never released His followers from their obligation
to it. He had made His first attempts in Judea to
gather under His wings ; and had not turned to Gali
lee, until those failed. In His sermon on the Mount,
wherein He published the fundamental laws of His
kingdom, He began with a most signal confirmation of
the law and the prophets. He never separated Himself
from the Mosaic sanctuary. He devoted Himself ex
clusively to the Jews, being sent only to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel. Merely by necessity did He
occasionally come in contact with Samaritans and
heathen. He sent His twelve and His seventy to the
Jews alone. And, if His biography were not evidence
enough, the protracted attachment of His people to
the customs and rites of Moses, and their scruples as
to the admission of the heathen, would show clearly
what example He had given. It would almost have
seemed as if the end of His redemption were confined
to the cleansing of the Jews and the glorifying of the
Mosaic economy.
But while all the Gospels, even that of John, agree
in this, yet all, the synoptic as well as that of John, as
cribe to Him the prediction that something very different
should take place — the rejection of the Jews and re
ception of the heathen. Nothing but ignorance of the
divine counsels can be puzzled or offended by our Lord's
patience with the Jews and accommodation to Mosaism
— the root of which lay, not in the essential limitation
of God's purpose, but in the intentional order of its
development. Christ knew the preparation of heart
E 2

52 CHRIST -AND THE CHURCH.
among the heathen — a field ripe for harvest. He knew
that He was appointed to be the Saviour of the world.
But He denied Himself to the most inviting sphere of
labour, that He might devote Himself to His proper
duty. He belonged in the first place to the Jews,-
to whom He had been promised. Old Testament
prophecy nowhere points to an immediate disappearance
of the peculiar place of Israel, on the appearance of
Messiah. All the prophets see in Israel the central
people of the kingdom of heaven— the seat of Messiah's
rule — the instrument for enlightening the nations.
To this tended the original call and the divine educa
tion of the chosen people. While all other men could
look only to grace, Israel had a vested right in
Messiah. Conformably to this did Christ, first in
person and then by His disciples, do all in His power
to bring Israel up to its true destination as the light of
the world and the focus of His kingdom. He came,
ready to fulfil not a part only, but the whole of those
prophecies of which many yet belong to the future.
The time shall certainly come when the Jewish nation
shall yet have a high place on earth, and be a pure
fountain of blessing for the nations that remain. The
resistance of the Jews hindered the accomplishment
of this. Not the less however did Christ come unto
His own, and hope against hope, giving Himself, with
divine humility, to the work of blessing that people
who rejected Him and delivered Him to the heathen.
In such circumstances He could not proceed to abolish
their ritual and customs.- Although that which has
since disappeared was only a shadow, yet it was quite
possible for the shadow to subsist for a time as a con
temporaneous reflex after the appearance of the sub-

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. 53
¦stance. No one could say how much of the peculiarities
of the Mosaic economy might survive in the new
covenant, if Israel should really embrace the latter.
And our Lord at first said nothing as to the extent to
which the forms of Moses should pass over into His
Church, even in the event of the Jews excluding them
selves from it ; but reserved it to Himself to enlighten
His disciples thereon, when the time should come.
Christ, rejected by His own, died as King of the
Jews. But when He rose from the dead He showed
Himself as Saviour of the world, not merely as
restorer of that which the world had lost, but as
having first purified and redeemed the nature of
man, and then raised it, endowed with the Holy
Ghost, to a majesty excelling that of angels ; making
His people one with Him, partakers of His divine glory,
and set in heavenly places in Himself, now by faith,
afterwards in open revelation. The Church, which came
into being at Pentecost, is not only the communion of
the regenerate, but the possessor of the Holy Ghost,
and much more, from the first, than a mere continuation
of Israel or the substitute for a rejected people.' She
is heavenly in origin, essence, and destination — having
Him for her head who is above all heavens — having
that unity with Him which He hath with the Father —
destined to walk with Him in humility, and to be
exalted in Him, as He now on the Father's throne, so
she afterwards on His. The future half of His work as
Redeemer will be but the disclosure of that condition
which already is. The appearance of Christ in glory
will reveal the true being of the Church, and display
her as the help meet for Him, as ruling with Him the
world to come.

54 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
The occurrence of events made the Old Testament
prophecies plain. Apparently limited to the futurity
of Israel, those prophecies contained also the counsels
of God as to the Church. For although she is no mere
substitute for Israel, and has a higher being and des
tiny, yet Israel was in all things her counterpart and
earthly shadow. All that Israel had — all names, pro-
• mises, ordinances, belong, in a deeper sense and more
glorious form, to her. The whole Old Testament,
fulfilled or to be fulfilled in Israel, testifies in mystic
language of the Church, and is written for her, both in
her glory and in her trials and sufferings. For although
the Church of Christ, by virtue of her unity with Him,
is the Queen of heaven,* yet she must reach her goal
by an earthly course. Although she is originally in
possession of the Paraclete in all His fulness, yet she
must go through stages of development and grow up
from childhood to manhood. The whole truth is
entrusted to her, but not as a dead treasure buried in
the chambers of memory. The living Spirit of truth
lives in her, and leads her into all truth. He does so
from step to step, not by suddenly imparting to her a
useless omniscience, but by awakening in her, on every
occasion, not too late, yet not too early, the precise
measure of knowledge which she needs, to do the will
of God. She is no kingdom of this world, and does not
stand under the letter of the Mosaic law. Yet she is
appointed to be visible, and to shape herself in this
world according to a divine law. In all her members
she is filled with the Holy Ghost. Yet she is not merely
* The Papal Virgin both usurps and anticipates the Church's-
place.— Tr.

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. 55
Spirit, but the body of Christ — an organism, in which
each member receives from God its place and charge —
a body, tangibly and historically developed.
But how shall this development proceed? There
is one pattern to which it must correspond — the pattern
of Christ. He too was not perfect from the beginning.
He was made perfect by suffering and obedience. He
began not as the Omniscient ; but grew in knowledge.
He had his development, without being in sin while
undeveloped. He was tempted, without being in
sin while tempted. Where there is progress to be
made, there must indeed be the feeling of ignorance,
of weakness, and of danger ; but there needs be no
sin. Faithfulness is secure against transgression in all
circumstances. Trial and temptation are necessary.
Consent to evil is not so. As Christ did, so should the
Church afford the practical proof, that man can under
go development without the presence of sin.
This and no less is the duty of each one who through
the mystical washing of baptism is buried and raised
with Christ. And it is the duty of the whole Church, as
the aggregate of the baptized. Christians walk indeed
in the flesh. But Christ too walked in the flesh, yet
without sin. In Christians the old man is put to death,
and the new man quickened with Christ, that he may
walk in newness of life and keep in death that sin which
has been already delivered to death. We have a
heavenly inheritance, that we may die unto the world.
The Church is in the world as Christ was. He was
visible. She is. He is now hidden. She should
exhibit Him, as He once revealed the Father. The
Holy Spirit is present to glorify Christ in the Church.
The world sees and knows not the Holy Spirit. But it

56 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
sees the Church. And through the Church will God
persuade the world that Christ has come from Him and
gone unto Him again. In whom should the world see
the virtues of Christ, and how can it believe in the in
visible, if it does not perceive His image in the Church ?
The obligation which rested on Israel rests with double
weight on the Church, to glorify God by her conver
sation, and not to deny by her acts and her whole
condition that which she declares in word. She is an
institution for the healing of men. She must bring them
real and perfect cure. She may not sink into a mere
place of keeping for the incurable. The character of
the Church militant, when she becomes the triumphant,
must be like that of her Lord — in her resurrection,
glorification, ascension into heaven, and participation
in the rule of the new creation. And as her end
corresponds to His so should her history to His, ex
hibiting His image in her lowliness, and His conver
sation in hers.
Thus should it have been. Thus could it have been.
If it has not been so, the fault lies not with the Founder
of the Church — not with the Dweller in the Church —
not with God— but with man. Vain is the attempt to
excuse man by saying, that error and sin are unavoid
able processes. In thus excusing man God is accused,
slandered, blasphemed. If the Church has not been
sufficiently furnished with the means of continuing in
truth and holiness, the reproach of her error and sin
returns upon Christ. To say that sin is unavoidable in
the life of the Church, because that life is human, is to
say, either that Christ's life was not human or that it
was not sinless. In the mouth of the Pantheist such ex
pressions are intelligible, but not in that of the Christian

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. 57
who owns that God is never the author of evil, and
that the creature is responsible for all his acts. Whence
has the Christian his authority to style the apostacy of
God's children a natural development, and to compare
the self-induced corruption of Christendom with a phy
sical disease ? The sphere of man's liberty is large ;
but no less great is the guilt of its abuse, through which
the Christian Church has missed her mark and dis
graced her calling.
The course of the Church has followed, with fatal
truth, the type of unfaithfulness given in that of the
Jewish people. She has converted the warning lesson
of Israel's sin and judgment into an accomplished pro
phecy against herself. The possibility of apostacy
even among the highest in Christendom — that sad
mystery which Christ so cautiously indicated — she has
unblushingly disclosed into a gigantic undeniable fact.
And where the world should have seen a manner and
measure of goodness previously unknown, it has seen
a manner and measure of wickedness to which neither
Jew nor Heathen could attain. The higher the place
of the Christian, the deeper is his fall, and the more
difficult his rescue. The greater his power for good,
the greater his power for evil. Blindness was the fate
of the fleshly Jew ; but double blindness is that of the
Christian, who, having begun in the Spirit, ends in the
flesh. This downward course of the Christian nations has
also been an aggravated repetition of the departure of
the heathen from God. When the Gospel was preached
and the Church planted among the heathen, the un
clean spirit of heathenism gave place and quitted his
habitation. The Church was fructified in the midst of

S8 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
the. wilderness by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost,
and was created out of the chaos of destruction as
a holy people in whom Christ might reveal Himself to
the world. The sacrament of baptism gradually
brought the nations of Europe into this sacred stand
ing. What has become of them since ? Step by step
have the crimes of the heathen returned, and banished
the vexed Spirit of Christ. And that faith which can
not consist with sin, has decayed with the departure
of the Spirit. An unholy life has always been the
prelude of infidelity. The degradation, and then the
neglect of worship— that great sin of omission in the
ancient world — has been committed in Christendom
also, and has been punished with judicial blindness in
the latter, as in the former. Once more has the Word
been fulfilled, " Esteeming themselves wise, they be
came fools." The wise ones of apostate Christendom,
as of apostate modern Judaism, have repeated the
great lie of deifying the creature, and even now cele
brate with every appliance of mental culture, yea,
extol as the climax of Christian piety, the apotheosis of
the Spirit of nature and of man. Thus does the demon
once expelled return in sevenfold strength, to set up
his throne on the place which the Holy Ghost forsakes.
Thus does a generation arise worse than all its prede
cessors. The worship of nature, and the adoration of
fallen humanity in the stead of God's Son, whether
associated with open infidelity, or, as is rather to be
feared, with delusive superstition, completes the last
and deepest of all moral corruptions. From what
quarter can healing come for the apostasy of those
who have had among them the highest form and
power of salvation, — and forsaken it ? To the heathen

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. 59
world, when, like the prodigal, it had spent its all, the
Saviour came. But to Christendom, when the space
for repentance is past, can He come only as judge.
Yet the history of the Church testifies as clearly as
that of the Jews and that of the human race have
done, that, while all men are liars, God is true and
faithful. Man has so sinned, that the disappearance of
the truth and of the work of the Spirit of truth from
the earth would be at once the natural consequence
and the just punishment of his ways. But what
Christendom has merited, it has not yet received.
Still has the Holy Ghost remained with us. His union
with the Church, to whom He condescended in coming
down from heaven, is indissoluble. She still enjoys,
not the mere gifts and operations, but the presence of
the Paraclete, as certainly and constantly as Christ,
whom He here represents, is in heaven. The Spirit
cannot forsake her. He cannot leave the earth until
she leave it too, in the day of her translation. In like
manner has the truth remained. That measure of it
which is indispensable to the saving of souls, and the
continuance of Christian ordinances, however inade
quate to the attainment of perfection, has never been
denied by the ministries of the Church. The way of
salvation has continued open, although a thousand
stumbling-blocks and ignorances have impeded its dis
covery and use. The sacraments, those fountains of
divine life, have preserved their essence even in the
worst times. By a wonderful providence, the orthodox
and catholic doctrine, although in many points overlain,
perverted, and diluted, has been substantially main
tained in the Church at large. And as God has pre
served for every Christian the means of salvation, so

60 CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
has he conserved until now the truth and grace needful
for the perfecting of the Catholic Church, that they
may, at this end of the dispensation, be brought forth
out of hiding and oppression into full disclosure and
restored operation.*
* Although the Romanists support their doctrine by a text,
which, except in a figurative sense (taking natural life as the sym
bol of spiritual), has no application to the matter, when they quote
the promise that the gates of hades shall not prevail against the
Church, yet their doctrine is true, that the Church shall never
perish. An apostasy of the Church is impossible. But an apostasy
in the Church is possible, and not only possible but certainly pre
dicted. And no man can say how many members of the Church —
yea how many separate Churches or ecclesiastical constitutions in
the Church that apostasy may carry away. The continuation of
fruitful branches in the vine to the end is as certain as the con
tinuance of the vine. But, how many twigs and whole branches
may be cut out, and their places supplied by others, who can tell !
None but members of Christ are capable of apostasy. Nowhere
but in Christendom can Antichrist be revealed. The remnant who
do not apostatize, be it men or Churches, will form that Church
which shall be divinely redintegrated and saved, and to which the
promise applies. — Tr.

fyt ilmijdff in t\t jtpstofa Jftp.

CHAPTER I.
THE LABORS OF PETER.
The drama of the Apostolic age divides itself into
three parts : the founding of the Church among Jews
by Peter — the founding of the Church among Heathen
by Paul — and the guidance of the Church by John,
after the death of both, when Jerusalem had been
destroyed and Ephesus had become the centre of the
Christian religion. For the first period, the Acts of
the Apostles by Luke are almost our only authority.
For the second, we have in addition the New Testa
ment Epistles, especially those of Paul. For the third,
we have chiefly the writings of John.
As concerning the life of Christ, so concerning the
most important part of the life of the Church, we find
little written. Yet that little is so rich that it has not
been exhausted by the experience of centuries and the
inquiries of the learned.

-62 PENTECOST.
The working of Christ in the Church was seen most
strikingly at the beginning. But, on this very account,
the right understanding of the initial history of the
Church decreased with the faith and illumination of
Christians. The consequent neglect of this subject has
been followed by its gross mistreatment through that
inimical criticism which has, with arbitrary profane-
ness, wrought such confusion in the biography of Christ
Himself. For all those, ih whose eyes the matter is
still sacred, a just estimate of the true import and inti
mate connection of primitive Church history, is a deeply
felt desideratum.

When our Lord went up to heaven He received
power to bestow the Holy Spirit on those who had
been reconciled through Him, and had been made one
with and in Him. As His atoning death and His
resurrection answered to the Passover, so did the
descent of the Spirit to the Feast of Weeks. At this
latter feast Israel brought, in typical worship, the first-
fruits of harvest into the sanctuary. And by their
consecration was the whole harvest sanctified. In like
manner had the first-fruits of the human race been
ripened for God. The 120 disciples who waited for the
fulfilment of the promise (Acts i. 15), and the 3,000
afterwards enlightened at Pentecost, were, by receiving
the earnest of the kingdom to come, brought into the
sanctuary. And their acceptance by God was the
pledge that the whole of redeemed mankind was
capable of sanctification.
Those strangers, out of every nation under heaven,

PENTECOST. 63
who witnessed the events of Pentecost, and the majo
rity of whom seem to have then received baptism, were
the representatives of all those nations among whom
the Church arose in the Apostolic age. This con
sideration may have moved the historian to the record
ing of their names. (Acts ii. 9 — 11).
Wind and fire are symbols of the Spirit. It was a
heavenly light, probably visible to the enlightened
alone, which appeared to the disciples, and, descending
from one source, divided itself into tongues of fire, and
rested upon each, like that brightness out of the opened
heavens which Christ beheld at His baptism and Stephen
at his death. On the other hand, it was the physical
force of the wind which filled the house, and by its
mighty sound attracted the multitude who were at the
time on their way to the sanctuary at the hour of
morning prayer. We must ascribe it to the operation
of the angels, when the inanimate creation accords to
the mighty acts of God, and declares them to men by
simultaneous phenomena — as was the case at the death
and resurrection of Christ, and on many occasions in
Old Testament history.
It was probably no private building, but one of the
porches which had been raised in the courts of the
temple, perhaps that afterwards mentioned Solomon's
porch, in which the miracle occurred, and before
which the listening crowd assembled.
With a loud voice and other tongues did those filled
with the Spirit publish the mighty deeds of God, both
the past and the future. Each of those who ap
proached heard them speak in his own tongue. The
supposition that they who spoke all used one tongue,
the original tongue of man, and that it sounded in-

6\ THE gift of tongues.
telligibly to each as his mother tongue, has an appear
ance of depth and plausibility. But it contradicts the
representation of the historian, which describes not a
miracle in the hearers, which would have been a self-
deception, but an actual speaking in many tongues.
We are far more warranted to suppose that the
thousands were divided into national bands, as they
had arrived to celebrate this feast, and that individual
disciples addressed individual groups, or several each
group. As the seer of old was enabled to discern the
hearts of men, so was on this occasion such a word
given to each of the disciples as addressed the heart
of each hearer in his mother tongue.
Every attentive reader of Paul's words, as to the
speaking with tongues in the Corinthian Church, must
be aware that the difference between it and the pheno
menon at Pentecost, could hardly be greater than it
was. (i Cor. xiv. 2.) There a speech, which no mortal
understood without interpretation, which no philologist,
none but the Holy Ghost, could interpret. Here a
speech which required no interpreter. There a gift
which edified none but the speaker. Here one which
edified the hearers. There no instruction for the ig
norant. Here their express instruction. Yet it were
most unwarranted to regard the gift at Pentecost as a
myth, on the ground of its disagreement with the
description of Paul. Paul nowhere professes to de
scribe an event similar to that at Pentecost. On the
contrary, in describing the charismata, and asserting
the pre-eminence of love, he evidently distinguishes
between two kinds of tongues with which man can
speak — those of men, and those of angels ; ( 1 Cor.
xiii. 1 ;) names peculiarly characteristic of two diverse

the gift of tongues. 65
phenomena. Tongues of men were spoken at Jerusa
lem ; tongues of angels at Corinth. And Paul is thus a
collateral witness for such a gift of tongues as Luke
describes.* It is clear that the Apostles had not then an abiding
capacity to preach in the tongues of the strangers who
met them, but were moved by a momentary inspiration.
It is uncertain whether this was ever repeated. At
any rate the miracle of Pentecost stands alone, like
the day on which it occurred. The human race, who
had been divided at Babel into nations and tongues, of
which each took its own course, was now, on the basis
of the redemption wrought for all, called together
again by the preaching of the One Spirit in many
tongues, that God might have one family, in which
division might disappear, and a much higher unity than
that destroyed at Babel be established.
The Jewish tradition, that, at Mount Sinai, the voice
which spake the ten commandments sounded through
out the whole earth, accompanied with fiery tokens,
and was heard in the seventy tongues of the heathen,
stands strikingly related to the narrative of Pentecost ;
both because, among the later (though not the pre
sent) Jews, the giving of the law was commemorated
at Pentecost ; and also because the mission of the
Comforter was really the new publication of the divine
law, written by Him in the hearts of men. Yet either
this tradition is of late origin and intended to set up
the sacred history of the Jews as a rival to that of
the Christians ; or, if it is older than the Acts of the
Apostles, it has had its origin in the deep-seated anti-
* Tongues of angels need not mean tongues by which we con
verse with angels. We know that angels can speak.— Tr.

66 the discourses of peter.
cipation of and longing for a yet more wonderful
oecumenic legislation, transcending the Mosaic, — an
anticipation which the Jew sought to satisfy by the
belief that the Mosaic law was already in itself such
a promulgation of the divine will for all nations.
The vague expectation of an event proposed by God
may easily take form in a tradition regarding the
past. But no laws of thought justify the conclusion
that such an event is therefore a mere fable.

The addresses of Peter at this early period to the
people and the Sanhedrin are most remarkable for the
simplicity of their contents. (Acts ii. 14; iii. 12.) He.
was warranted to assume of his hearers, that they ac
knowledged Christ as the man, accredited by God with
signs and wonders, in whom men could hardly fail to
see the antitype of Moses, save that His end upon the
cross formed a sad contrast to that of Moses. And
the great subject of faith and testimony was, that, in
spite of such an apparent contradiction, He was never
theless the Prophet like unto Moses — and not only
that, but the Anointed One, i.e. the King Messiah, the
Ruler of the kingdom of heaven. The unity of the
Mosaic and Davidic types, so little known to the Jews,
was presented to the eyes of the disciples in the risen
Lord, who, having sent the Spirit from the right hand
of the Father, should at His return bring with Him the
accomplishment of all prophecies. Peter's preaching
confined itself to this. Of the pre-existence of the Son
in heaven, His eternal divine majesty, His birth of the
Virgin, His atoning death, Peter said nothing. Yet as

the discourses of peter. 67
the object of Christian faith is not a congeries of dead,
though true and important propositions, but the living
Christ, what Peter declared to the Jews was exactly
those works of God which it was at the time profitable
and possible for them to apprehend, as introductory to
the rest of the truth.
One thing is wonderful indeed — viz. the hope held
out by Peter to his people, that, if they would yet
obey the call of John, and repent both of their sins in
general, and specially of their great national sin against
Christ, God would not only give them remission of
their sins, but send those times of refreshing from His
presence when Christ should return and all that the
prophets had spoken should be fulfilled. Acts iii. 19 —
26). In other words, the kingdom of God on earth,
with Israel as the dominant nation, should appear with
the return of Christ, as coupled with the conversion of
God's ancient people. Thus that conversion was re
presented as possible, and made the condition of
Christ's re-appearance as King to bless the Jews, and,
through them, the nations. Such leading ideas as
these throw much light, not only upon the conceptions
of the disciples at the time, but upon the real state of
things. So great was the divine forbearance with the
Jews, that they were not yet rejected of Him for
having rejected Christ. That deed, needful to the fulfil
ment of His purposes, had been done in ignorance.
And its guilt could yet be expunged on repentance.
It was still for the moment open to them to become,
in a higher sense than before, the people of God. If
they embraced this the last occasion, the new order of
things foretold by the prophets should at once appear.
Jerusalem should remain the visible centre of Messiah's
f 2

68 the discourses of peter.
kingdom. And there should apparently be left no'
place for the independent development of the Church
as transcending both the Jews and the distinction be
tween Jew and Gentile. But this difficulty is merely
apparent ; for, in such a case, Israel itself should have
been lifted up to be the New Testament Israel, and
the earthly Jerusalem to be the heavenly polity of
God. Further we will not speculate. Thus far the
letter of Scripture warrants us to go.
Yet this came not to pass. The guilt of the Jews
had indeed then not been filled up. But it was com
pleted by their rejection of the double witness given
by the Apostles and the Holy Ghost, for Christ raised
from the dead. (Acts v. 32.) Not by insulting and
slaying Christ in His humiliation, but by resisting the
words and slaying the messengers of Christ in His
glory, who thus testified to them by His Church and
by His Spirit, did they invoke their tragical end.
This view gives peculiar emphasis to the first perse
cution against the Church and to the death of Stephen
(Acts iv — vi), as the continuation and aggravation of
the things done against Christ in person. The same
parties were mainly concerned in both. Only, while
the Pharisees were the chief enemies of Christ, the
Sadducees were of His Church. The Sadducees, who,.
although constituting a minority in the people and the
Sanhedrin, yet possessed (like Caiaphas) the highest
offices, shewed a hostility greater than before, while
counsels of moderation proceeded from the Pharisees,
or rather from their chief Gamaliel. After the death
of Christ Himself, political apprehensions or pretexts,
such as then united all parties against Him, were out
of the question. The Christians were brought to exe-

the first persecutions. 69
•cution not as political criminals, but as heretics. The
violent acts of the Sadducees, whom even Josephus
characterises as cruel in their judgments, were dictated
by pure hatred to the truth, and resistance to the tes
timony concerning the risen One. In the counsel of
Gamaliel (Acts v. 35) (whom Luke describes in ac
cordance with the Talmud,) we find traces indeed of
the fear of God, yet beyond these nothing but that
human wisdom, which, instead of acknowledging the
hand of God, contending for the truth, and employing
the gift of discernment in the light of God, dictates,
under the pretext that discernment is impossible, an
indolent postponement, and allows the hour of sal
vation to pass.

In the midst of these troubles Peter appears in that
plenitude of apostolic functions, which we see after
wards in Paul only, and even in him for but a short
period. In these Peter was sustained by a Church the
purity of which has had no parallel. This Church was
remarkable for its strictly Israelitish character and its
hearty attachment to the Mosaic law and sanctuary,
without disowning its new attributes. No subsequent
Church either could or should occupy such a twofold
position as that of the congregation at Jerusalem, — on
the one hand still bound up with Israel, on the other
possessing the Spirit and ordinances of Christ. Tra
dition informs us that the porch of Solomon survived
the destruction of the old temple, and thus constituted
that part of the buildings which covered the hill of
the temple, in which the unity of the first and second
houses stood expressed. The use of this porch, first

70 the ordinances of the church.
by Christ and then by His Church (Acts iii. 11), sym
bolically expressed the unity of the old and new
covenants. The 3,000 and then the 5,000 believers
appeared daily, as members of the Jewish nation, in
this porch, which stood at their service, as other parts
of the buildings of the temple may have been granted
to other bodies of persons. They waited, at the
hours of prayer, the third and the ninth, on the daily
morning and evening worship of the Jews, being the
first who estimated its true mystical import. In their
own special meetings and the teaching of the Apostles,
they had an ample substitute for the Sabbatical ser
vices of the synagogue and the instruction of the
Scribes. Yet it is clear that while they weekly cele
brated the day of the resurrection, they strictly ob
served the Sabbath also. They held their love-feasts,
or agapa?, in private houses, apparently in conjunction
with the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Yet it can
not be determined how far the rite of the Sacrament Of
the altar and the understanding of its full meaning
were then developed. While the Old Testament ritual
retained, as it then did, its power, the Christian sacrifice
and priesthood, destined to take its place, were still in
an embryo form.
The Apostles, however, by their instructions, led the
special assemblies of the faithful into the depths of the
truth. They fulfilled the command of Christ on behalf
of the baptized, " teach them to do all things that I
have commanded you," by a faithful representation of
the words and deeds of their Master. And since we
have proof how faithfully they cared for the worldly
goods of the flock (Acts vi. 3), we cannot doubt that'
they were yet more careful for the heavenly goods en-

the ordinances of the church. 71
trusted to them in their reminiscences of Christ. The
Scriptures of the Old Testament were constantly read
in the assemblies of the faithful, who rejoiced in the
new light cast thereon. And it is probable that even at
that early period a fixed type of instruction had been
formed by the combination of the biography of Christ
with the prophecies and types.
The Hebrews and the Hellenists of whom the Church
consisted (Acts vi. 1) were distinguished merely by
language. The latter, whether in or out of Palestine,
having Greek instead of Hebrew for their mother
tongue, were nevertheless as much of Israelitish de
scent as the Hebrews, and as faithful to the law of their
fathers. Yet the Hebrews, in consequence of the im
portance attached to the sacred language, were regarded
as the more strict in the preservation of their common
traditions. Although the Hellenists were the minority,
yet their existence rendered it necessary that the
Gospel should be from the beginning published, and
the Old Testament read, in two languages. The
Apostles all belonged to the Hebrew part of the con
gregation. And when the Hellenists conceived that
their widows were neglected, the Church, of which the
majority were Hebrews, proceeded, in order to over
come distrust by confidence, to select for the care of
the poor, seven men, whose names indicate that they
belonged to the Hellenist party.
Community of goods was not established by law. Nor
was the resignation of private property into the hands
of the collective body, a condition of admission — as
among the Essenes. The liberty of each to retain his
possessions is clearly shewn by the words of Peter to
Ananias. (Acts v. 4). But love did more than the

72 THE community of goods.
strictest law. No one who possessed houses or lands,
failed in offerings for the poor, then numerous in the
Church. Ananias and Sapphira wished by deceit to
appear as liberal as the rest. They died, because they
thought to deceive with their hypocrisy the Holy Ghost.
who abides in the Church. (Acts v. 9.) The presence
of the Holy One, which they had thought so lightly
of, was put beyond question by so terrible an act of
divine discipline. The first buddings of falsehood
were nipped, and the Church preserved from the en
trance of hypocrites, who, at a time of such peace and
favor, would soon have crept in to enjoy the worldly
benefits of fraternal love. It was an experience full
of instruction for all after ages, that the community of
goods, of which, as a universal law, modern, especially
infidel, philanthropists dream, could not be carried out
in the purest society which ever was on earth, without
causing discontent and tempting to untruth.
The Apostles were at first the only ministers in the
Church, and fulfilled every duty therein. All offices
were, so to speak, wrapped up and contained in theirs.
The development of other offices resulted from the
devolution, first of inferior, then of higher functions
by the Apostles upon others associated with them. The
diaconate was the first to appear, and eldership the
next, as growths out of the apostolic root. The simi
larity of the deacons and elders with the officers in
the synagogue, — one so overdrawn by the students of
Judaism,* — in no way sanctions the idea of the former
being a mere continuance or imitation of the latter.
The fact that the ordinances of the Christian Church
are essentially suited to the real wants of man, renders
* Vitringa, de synagoga veterc libri iii. 1696, 1726.

deacons. 73
it in no way wonderful that by a natural process the
requirements of the Jewish polity should have given
anticipative birth to similar institutions, from which
the Apostles could learn, without thereby degrading
the divine ordinances, committed to, administered, and
developed by them, to the rank of mere human in
ventions. The Church has ever justly regarded the seven who
were entrusted with the care of the poor and the goods
of the flock, as having been the first deacons. To
them were especially entrusted the widows, whose
claim for regular support was acknowledged. Paul
gives more special regulations regarding these, (i Tim.
v. 3.) Yet we find them already, not only in Jerusa
lem, but in Joppa. And it seems as if Judaism had
already possessed a similar order. The pattern of
life for widows was Hannah, whom Luke mentions in
his gospel. They are to be distinguished from deacon-
nesses, of whom Dorcas, lamented by the widows of
Joppa, appears to have been one. (Acts ix. 36.)
If the deacons had duties at the love-feasts, they
necessarily came to assist at public worship also, one
of the earliest and most important employments as
signed to them by the Catholic Church. The require
ments of Paul as to deacons (1 Tim. iii. 8.) point
alike to trustworthiness in earthly things, and to a life
consistent with converse among heavenly things. It
was most natural that they should be allowed a share
in initial spiritual duties, for the blessing of those with
out, especially in preaching and baptism. For many.
of them their office was, as Paul expressly describes
it (1 Tim. iii. 13), a stepping-stone to a higher. They
were, as we have seen, chosen by the people, (a thing

74 ELDERS.
never said of the Presbyters,) and this for a most
natural among higher reasons, that the goods of the
Church might be in the hands of those in whom the
flock had expressed full confidence. By their election
the deacons became the proper representatives of the
congregation or laity. They were that which Pro
testants, through defective understanding of apostolic
ordinances, would have the elders of the Church to be.
The primitive Church had hardly subsisted ten years,
when Barnabas and Paul, on arriving at Jerusalem,
found elders already there, to whom they delivered
the gifts from Antioch. (Acts. xi. 30.) These elders
were evidently totally distinct persons from the seven
deacons, although the Acts are silent as to the date or
manner of their creation. Without doubt they had
been taken from among the earliest converts. And
many of them probably belonged to the 120 who, from
Pentecost onwards, formed the nucleus of the Church.
Some may have been of the number of the Seventy, to
whom the Lord Himself had given a preliminary mission.
(Luke x. 1 ). Yet it would be wrong to suppose that
the oldest members were necessarily and solely, as
such, elders. The elder required ordination by the
Apostles, as we see from the report of the first Apostolic
journey of Barnabas and Paul. (Acts xiv. 23.) And,
as Luke throughout draws the parallel between the
labors of Peter and Paul, he thus gives us to understand
that the elders in Jerusalem had, in like manner, been
brought into their office by apostolic ordination. This
also is clear, that the cure of souls, which is the work of
the pastor and cannot be separated from the conducting
of worship, was one of the duties of these elders. The
only obscurity is that which rests on the date at which

S. JAMES. 75
an office on which the Apostles devolved such important
duties arose. Yet even of this we may find a trace.
After the seven were appointed, and while Stephen
was in the full exercise of his ministry, many of the
priests were obedient to the faith. (Acts vi. 7.) This
suggests the inference that such was a fit occasion for
the first appearance of an office corresponding to theirs
in the Christian Church, emanating indeed, from the
apostolic, hut approved, and in many cases occupied,
by those converts out of the Aaronic priesthood, who
became most appropriately and deservedly elders of
the Church, under the new order of things into which
they themselves had been translated.
The origin of the higher order, the Episcopate, is
clearer than that of the Presbyterate. For, let the
name have been what it may, the place already oc
cupied by James in Jerusalem was no other than the
Episcopate. James was not one of the twelve, but
the oldest among the brethren of the Lord, — men
clearly distinguished in both the Acts and Gospels from
the Apostles. Jerome is the chief author of the erro
neous view in the Latin church, that James was one of
the Apostles, viz. the son of Alphaeus. And he makes
another mistake in understanding the " brethren of the
Lord " to mean, not sons of Joseph, but sons of Cleopas
and the sister of the Blessed Virgin. The Greek Church
has stuck to the primitive tradition, that the brethren
and sisters of the Lord were children of Joseph by a
former marriage.
This James stood over the elders in Jerusalem, and
was the one head of the collective faithful. For to him
apply the last words of Peter, when at length forced
to flee from Jerusalem. (Acts xii. 17.) To him

7*5 S. JAMES.
was the Church entrusted by the Apostles. The
high honour put upon him precludes the idea of his
being a mere primus inter pares in the college of
elders. He was not one of the twelve; and yet he
belonged to the pillars of the Church, and stood almost
on an equal footing with the Apostles; nay, in the
opinion of the Jewish Christians, on a footing so com
pletely equal, that they judged of Paul by his agree
ment with James. (Gal. ii. 12.) To him Paul addressed
himself when he again visited the metropolis. (Acts
xxi. 18). With him, as much as with Peter and John,
did Paul labour to come to an understanding. (Gal. ii.,
Acts xv.) And in the council James spoke the deci-.
sive word.
All this appears clearly from the New Testament.
It corresponds so exactly with the statements of Hege-
sippusas to "James the Just," (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
11. 23,) and to the traditions which form the basis of the
Apocrypha of Clement, in the Recognitions, Homilies,
and Apostolical Constitutions, that the latter thereby
acquire in substance a measure of credit. James had
been, if the gospel of the Hebrews speaks true, brought
to the faith by a vision of the risen Lord, like that of
Paul. (1 Cor. xv. 7.) He was, in his conversation,
really that blameless one after the law whom Hegesip-
pus describes him to have been, — a man regarded with
esteem by all Israelites — an unwearied intercessor for
his people, whose destruction he saw approaching.
As the Apostles, when forced to quit Palestine, had
entrusted to him the superintendence of all the
churches gathered therein, so the flocks in Judea,
Galilee, Samaria, and the coasts, all appertained to his
diocese. Indeed, it appears as if the Judaic-Christian

S. JAMES. 77
congregations of the diaspora were also placed under
his care. For one cannot avoid seeing in him the
author of the canonical Epistle of James.
We do not go too far in asserting that James was
invested by the Apostles with a dignity at least epis
copal. Perhaps he had, in addition, other . functions
personal to himself, and exceeding those of ordinary
bishops. Be this as it may, the episcopal constitution
in other parts of the Church, had already found its
first pattern in Jerusalem. And the fixed character
which it so early assumed there, in the mother of all
Churches, under the eyes of the Apostles themselves,
undoubtedly contributed not a little to its speedy in
troduction throughout all Christendom.
Deacons chosen by the people, elders appointed by
the Apostles, and over them a chief Shepherd respon
sible for the whole — the essential elements in the
organization of each individual church, — came into
being in Jerusalem in the simplest manner. But in
other places also do we perceive the devolution of
those functions of the Head which were originally shut
up in the Apostles. At first they were themselves
the sole preachers of the Gospel, as the sole doers of
every work. But we soon find Evangelists, like Philip
(Acts viii. 5, xxi. 8), fulfilling this part of their duty,
and hastening from place to place where Christianity
had not yet penetrated. In Samaria Philip preceded
the Apostles (who followed him, to complete his
work), just as the seventy disciples went before Christ.
And after this we find, in Agabus, Judas, and Silas,
prophets, through whose word the Spirit of Christ
brought light to the Church, without any usurpation on
the part of men thus wonderfully used, of that Catholic

78 THE APOSTLES.
rule which belonged to the Apostles alone. (Acts xi. -
27, 28 ; xv. 32 ; xxi. 10.)
After the Apostles, however, had thus obtained such
various help, they retained enough peculiar to them
selves and incommunicable to others. While others
fled, they remained in Jerusalem (Acts viii. 1), evi
dently as the guides of the whole body. They pre
sided in council. Peter and John passed into Samaria,
to impart the Holy Spirit, by the laying on of their
hands, to those whom Philip had baptized — a holy
office out of which, at a later period, episcopal con
firmation sprang. Peter went the round of the whole
new founded churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria,
and on the coast of the Mediterranean, in Lydda, and
in Joppa (Acts ix. 31, 32), to order them according to
the pattern of the Church in Jerusalem, and to give
them the Apostolic confirmation and completion of
that which other servants of Christ had wrought. And
if the laying on of hands upon baptized persons was
not devolved on Philip, it is plain that the yet higher
office of consecration to ministry, continued peculiar to
the Apostles.
These positions rest directly on the authentic and
explicit statements of the Acts. And therefore, we have
no fear of having fallen into the error of transferring
by a fiction later views and practices into the primitive
period, in order to invest them with the authority of
antiquity. Those, who are disposed to look upon the
condition of the primitive Churches as one of innocent
anarchy, ought to reflect, that the universally acknow
ledged Israelite character of the congregations in
Palestine, one so much insisted on by a certain party,
constrains us to assume in them a peculiar regard for

THE APOSTLES. 79
order and law, practical tact, strict obligation, and
in every member the most scrupulous observance of
his own border and those of others. The measures
and institutions of the primitive Church, although only
shortly noticed in the Acts, must be regarded, not as
mere temporary expedients for the occasion, but as
elements of a steady organic development. The oppo
site theory, which finds no proof of fixed ecclesiastical
order in the Acts, arises, partly from a want of ex
perience and practical knowledge, partly from pro
found ignorance of this cardinal truth, that the Church,
although composed of members who are all called to
be filled with the Holy Ghost, has yet been from the
beginning not mere spirit, but the very body of Christ,
in which every part has that place and duty which have
been assigned to it by God, and no other. The Church
is the most perfect of all organizations, and Christianity
the completion of all ordinances. For they form to
gether the chief work of God, by whom all things in the
world consist, and are ordered.
Although the labors of the Apostles had been hitherto
confined to the Jews, a rapid succession of events pointe
to and prepared the way for the passing over of sal
vation to the Gentiles. Of these the first was the
ministry of Stephen. He was the great precursor
of the Apostle to the heathen ; and his speech before
the Sanhedrin already embraced a circle of truths
which Peter had never touched upon, but which formed
the very substance and basis of Paul's doctrine and
ministry. Stephen, himself a Hellenist, held inter
course with those synagogues which the Hellenized
Jews from foreign parts — Italy, Cyrene, Lower Egypt,
Cilicia, and Asia — had founded in Jerusalem (Acts vi. 9),

80 S. STEPHEN.
forasmuch as it did not escape him that the Hellenists
were fitted to communicate the knowledge of the truth
to the heathen. The accusations brought against him
must, although brought by false witnesses, have had
some foundation in the words of the martyr. "We
have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall
destroy this place, and change the customs which
Moses delivered to us." (Acts vi. 13.) We can the
more easily determine what he really did say, since the
same accusation had been previously directed against
Christ on a ground which we know. Christ had never
said, " I will destroy the temple." But He had said,
" Destroy this temple, and I will build it again in three
days." So spake He to those who defended that dese
cration of the sanctuary which they should have pre
vented, when He put an end to it. " Proceed thus, and
ye will bring the destruction of the temple to pass." He
thus described His enemies as the destroyers, and
Himself as the restorer of the sanctuary. So also
must Stephen have spoken. With reference to the
growing opposition of the Jews to the cause of Christ,
he declared as a prophet that of which we find not a
word in the preaching of Peter. "This sanctuary
shall fall, in a judgment predicted by Christ, invoked
by you ; and the Church of Christ shall, on the aboli
tion of the Mosaic worship, observe, as an independent
holy people, a new law." This must have been his
supposed blasphemy against the holy place and the
law — against Moses and God. For this was his state
ment on his trial, not indeed in so many words (which
would not have been borne for a moment), but in his
appeal to the history of the past as a mirror of the
future. What he said of Moses (Acts vii. 35) might

S. STEPHEN. 8 I
have served as a key to the hearers for the understand
ing of the rest ; for Moses was undoubtedly compared
in his whole course with Christ, and the behaviour of the
people towards their lawgiver with that of the Jews
towards Christ. The wrath of the Jewish rulers leaves
no doubt that they understood Stephen's word better
than Christian theologians have, according to whose
usual interpretation the speech contains very little
pertinent to Stephen's defence, and nothing fitted to
silence his accusers. But this view puts the new and
very pertinent doctrines and predictions contained in
the speech in a clear light.
" Abraham," says Stephen, " received from the God
of glory, who appeared to him, the command to emi
grate from his land and kindred." (Acts vii. 2.) So
have we, to whom God has appeared in Christ, re
ceived the command to forsake our generation ; an
application the more apposite, that Paul calls Abraham
the father of the faithful, his faith our faith, and his
relation to God that of Christians to God. Abraham's
seed had to suffer bondage in a strange land. But
God promised to rid his people of the oppressor,
and bring them out to serve Him. So should the race
of oppressors, before whom Stephen stood, come to
an end like Pharaoh and his host, and the liberated
Church should then hold its independent worship.
" Joseph was through envy betrayed by his brethren
to the heathen ; but he was delivered by God from
all evil, and set up as a benefactor and ruler of the
heathen. (Acts vii. 9.) " So had it been with Christ,
so should it be with His Church. But the type did
not end with this. It contained the sorest thing which
a Jewish ear could hear, although in the mildest form.
g

82 S. STEPHEN.
"Great distress drove the brethren of Joseph into
Egypt, to seek for food. Then was Joseph made
known to them, and used to bring his fathers house to
Goshen." So shall great tribulation and famine come
upon you; but ye shall at length acknowledge Him
whom ye rejected, who has in the meanwhile fed the
despised heathen. He shall kindly receive you, the
people of Israel, and appoint to you a place in His
kingdom. Herein lay a revelation as to the ultimate
fate of the Jews, precisely similar to the mystery
declared by Paul in the eleventh chapter of the epistle
to the Romans.
The application of the third section of the address
(Acts vii. 20), (concerning the birth of Moses at the
time of hardest oppression, his first attempt and his
rude rejection as deliverer, and his flight into forty years'
concealment), made to the mystery of Christ, is so
plain as to require no comment. Christ was born at a
time when the Roman emperor, by his census, put the
stamp of perfected bondage on the people of God, and
when the Idumsean commanded the murder of the
Innocents in order to annihilate the hope of Israel. Christ,
arrived at manhood, had offered Himself as His people's
Saviour. Rejected, He had withdrawn from their eyes.
And then comes an opening of the final history of the
Jews, the more remarkable, that, although well founded
in the Old Testament, it appears nowhere else in
the New — the restoration of the Jews in consequence
of Christ's second appearance, as the anti-type of
Israel's deliverance by Moses. Such was undoubtedly
Stephen's use of the Mosaic type.
" Now, indeed," so concludes the address, " ye act
towards Christ as your fathers towards their lawgiver

S. STEPHEN. 83
while he was hidden upon the holy mount. They said
unto Aaron : Up, make us gods which shall go before
us ; for as for this Moses we wot not what is become of
him." (Exod. xxxii. 1.) The highpriest, the president
of the court, must have seen himself in Aaron, who led
Israel to the sin which followed. Of old the Baby
lonish captivity had been the punishment of apostasy.
The tabernacle, yea the temple, had not shielded
against God's judgment. For " the Most High
dwelleth not in temples made with hands." In this
Stephen expressed no disapprobation of the building of
the temple, as some moderns have strangely imagined.
Such a thought would have been entirely foreign to the
matter in hand, a contradiction between Stephen and
both Peter and Paul, and a just ground for the accusa
tion of blasphemy. He rather said, " Although the
Most High has willed the building of this sanctuar}',
in the everlasting continuance of which ye so trust that
ye regard my warning as blasphemy, yet He is not
bound to it. He can, He will forsake it, because ye
have become traitors, murderers, and breakers of
His law."
The deceived Jews thought themselves entitled to
apply that jus zeli, on which the celebrated act of
Phinehas was based, by tumultuously putting to death
'the supposed blasphemer. There seems at that time
to have been no Roman Governor in Palestine. And
Herod Agrippa I. could not then have entered on his
kingly government. Such a persecution as this, which
extended as far as Damascus, could not have been set
On foot by the authority of the Jews, except during
an interregnum. It happened in 39 or 40, a.d.
The death of the first martyr served, like the suffer-
g 2

84 THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA.
ings of all martyrs, to spread the truth, and helped to
fulfil his own prophecy as to the transfer of salvation to
the heathen. One might imagine that this crime of the
supreme authority among the Jews would have justi
fied the Apostles in forsaking Jerusalem, shaking the
dust off their feet, rejecting the Jews as a nation, and
devoting themselves exclusively to the heathen. But
this they did not do. On the contrary, while all others
dispersed, they, although the most endangered, remained
in Jerusalem. For this course they must have had an
express command of Christ, assuring them that the
time for acting otherwise had not yet come. Yet a
series of events, recorded in the Acts from the eighth
to the twelfth chapter, proves how the Spirit of God
pressed the Church to the conversion of the heathen,
and how the providence of God tended in the same
direction ; the successful preaching to the Samaritans -r
the baptism of the Ethiopian; the conversion of the
man who should be Apostle to the heathen ; the pouring
out of the Spirit on Cornelius and his house; and
lastly, the great opening among the heathen at Antioch.
Philip, who seems from this time forward to have
laboured as an Evangelist, in a higher sphere than
that of a deacon, preceded the Apostles. He found
among the Samaritans as much preparedness for Chris
tianity as for heathen magic, to which Justinus Martyr*
testifies that they were addicted, and which was indeed
so general among them that, in the mouth of a Jew,.
Samaritan, and sorcerer, or demonist, were synony
mous. (John viii. 48.) When Peter and John arrived
to complete the work of Philip, they received the divine
sanction for what had been done, in the undeniable
* Apolog. I. ch. 54.

THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA. 85
outpouring of the Holy Spirit. (Acts viii. 14.) Such a
confirmation was necessary to dissipate the conscientious
doubts raised by the planting of the Church among
Samaritans, whom the Jews regarded as heathen.
It was, prospectively regarded, a most pregnant cir
cumstance, that the Gospel had scarcely taken root
among the heathen, when a new evil appeared, to warn
the Apostles of the peculiar danger to which Christi
anity should be exposed among nations not previously
subdued and chastened by any divine legislation. (Gal.
iii. 24. ) The statement that Simon the sorcerer was looked
upon as " the great power of God " (Acts viii. 10) by
those whom he deceived with his magic arts has, strange
though it may seem, the highest degree of probability,
in the eyes of any one who knows the opinions and ten
dencies of that period. He had undoubtedly a power
higher than that of others also regarded as demo
niacal, a force of hell before which all other sorcery
gave way. Hence the idea most naturally prevailed
that, not one of the lower agencies but, the first and
highest emanation of Deity was embodied in him,
until his arts were put to shame by the simple power
of the Gospel. In his proposal to Peter he betrayed
(Acts viii. 19) the tendency to that daring prostitution
of Christianity which forms the essence of the ancient
heathenish heresies in the Church, the object of which
was to use Christianity as a magic agency, overlooking
its moral power ; to appropriate its supernatural reve
lations and gifts, regardless of its humbling and sanc
tifying discipline; and to desecrate all in the service of
pride, whether that of the charlatan or that of the
philosopher. The tradition, therefore, which represents
the magician of Gittin as the originator of all heathen-

86 BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS.
gnostic heresy, and as the chief adversary of Peter, is.
certainly not entirely groundless. The Acts themselves^.
although silent as to the subsequent encounter at
Rome, clearly point to the injury which Simon did to
the Church. Peter foresaw that he should be " for a
gall of bitterness and for a bond of iniquity " (Acts
viii. 23), in other words, that he should pollute and
poison many of the faithful, and present a centre and
stay for the elements of lawlessness among them.*
Hitherto no one had received baptism who was not
circumcised. The Ethiopian and the centurion were
the first who, as proselytes of the gate, had been joined
to the Church. Neither Philip nor Peter would have
ventured to act as they did, without especial super
natural illumination and incitement. Thus they were
enabled, without a repetition of miraculous guidance, to
repeat an act, then already demonstrated to have been
well-pleasing to God. In Cornelius, with his holy
reverence for God, his beneficence, and his prayers-
(Acts x. 1), we find expressed that preparation and
longing on the part of the heathen, which tallied with
the desires of Peter and the motions of the Spirit
in him. The partition which separated the Apostle
from Cornelius (Acts x. 28, xi. 3), rested upon provi
sions which, in order to prevent the possibility of
ceremonial uncleanness, exceeded the provisions of
Moses to a much greater extent than now. For among
modern Jews, the prohibition extends not to crossing the
threshold, but only to partaking in the food, of the
uncircumcised, which of course cannot be prepared ac
cording to the Talmud. The vision of Peter presented
to him the manifold forms of the heathen whom the
* Matter, histoire critique du gnosticisme, i. p. 180—235,

BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS. '87
Church should embrace, the preparation of the unclean
by the Apostle as a sacrifice well-pleasing to God, and
the consequent appeasing of the Apostle's hunger for
their conversion. By the command "Sacrifice and
eat" (Acts x. 13), God purified the unclean.* Peter
followed the messenger into the house of the centurion.
The place where an angel had trodden was also clean
for him. They who had received the baptism of the
Spirit from God, could not be denied the baptism with
water by him. They whom God had miraculously
declared to haye been cleansed by Himself, could not
be declared by Peter unworthy of the sacrament of
cleansing. God has indeed appointed in the Church
that baptism shall precede the endowment with the
Holy Ghost. But He has not fettered Himself. He
can anticipate His ordinances in the impartation of
His grace.
The event in Caesarea is by Peter himself compared
and almost co-ordinated with the first outpouring of
the Spirit. (Acts xi. 15). The two events resembled
each other, both in the immediate descent of the
Spirit, and in the proof of His presence by the praise
of God in other tongues. They were both the accep
tance of the first fruits ; one from the Jews, the other
from the Gentiles. The elevation of heathen, without in
troduction through Moses, to the dignity of the anointed,
was, in fact, a judgment upon the followers of Mosaism.
A divine act had declared, that, in the Church, as the
temple of the Holy Ghost, the precedence of the Jews
* Linteum significat ecclesiam catholicam, ad quam totus-
terrarum orbis, omnes a quatuor plagis honimes vocantur; ilia
coelestem habet ariginem et tandem in coelum transferetur. —
Wetstenius N. T. gr. ii. 1752, p. 517.

OS BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS.
was at an end, and the observance of the Jewish law
was no condition of communion.
All this seems so clear, that it suggests the histo
rical question, how, after such experiences, Peter could,
as Paul reports (Gal. ii. n), have been induced, at
Antioch, to renounce the communion of Gentile Chris
tians, and afterwards to confine his labors to the Jews.
This question is to be answered by considering, what
the event in the house of Cornelius really did establish,
and what it left yet unsettled. We shall see that it left
many questions of conscience unanswered.
Peter and the Church at Jerusalem were satisfied as
to that one case. But, while an exception had been
made in favor of those who feared God in Csesarea,
who were already on the threshold of Judaism, where
was the proof that a mere heathen might be baptized
without having beforehand visibly received the Spirit ?
Where was the warrant to go out and preach to those
yet enslaved by idolatry ? Where was the authority
for Peter to turn his back on the Jews, as a nation,
especially when another had been raised up as Apostle
to the heathen ? Lastly, had a word been spoken as
to the duty of the Jews to relinquish their ceremonial
law 1 In point of fact, the time for this last did not
arrive for at least twenty years after. Peter knew
and felt that, at the moment when the Churches should
relinquish the Mosaic ritual, and he should act as Paul
had done, all hope of operating upon the Jews as a body
would be at an end. On all these grounds, the mere
baptism of Cornelius made it no self-evident matter
that the twelve, with Peter at their head, were no longer
called upon to pay any regard to the Jews and to the
doubts of Jewish Christians.

PERSECUTION UNDER HEROD AGRIPPA I. 89
Apollonius at the end of the second century (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. v. 18) relates the tradition, that the Re
deemer himself gave the Apostles commandment not to
depart from Jerusalem for twelve years. It is doubtful
if our Lord predetermined such a time. But the number
of years corresponds pretty accurately with the narrative
of the Acts, as to the duration of Peter's labors in
Jerusalem and its neighbourhood. Chronological in
quiry has not yet determined whether the year 30 or
the year 3 1 of our usual computation, was the date of
the founding of the Christian Church.* But this is
clear, that the Feast of Easter, at which Peter was
forced to flee from Jerusalem, falls in the year 44 —
because in this year, the fourth of Claudius, Herod
Agrippa I. died.
The events of this year were of great importance to
the internal history of Judaism and Christianity. The
Jews had not followed up the slaughter of Stephen by
any fresh act of violence. All Roman governors were
not so ready as Pilate to execute the capital sentence
of the Sanhedrin. But in the first year of Claudius,
the royal dignity was granted by the emperor to Herod
Agrippa I.; and his government extended also over
Judea, so as to have the same circuit as that of his
ancestor the first Herod. In him the Jews once more
found a ruler from whom they might expect the exe
cution [of their plans, because he did not share that
jealousy against them as a nation which had actuated
the Roman knights who preceded him. He must also
have had a personal hatred to Christianity, which poli-
* In consequence of the recent chronological corrections, by
-which our Lord's birth is placed a few years earlier than it previously
had been. — Tr.

9O MARTYRDOM OF S. JAMES THE APOSTLE.
tical motives encouraged him to gratify, by coming
forward as zealous for Judaism, and securing the
favor of all the fanatically inclined. On some of the
Church he laid his hands to torture them, and slew
the elder James, the son of Zebedee, with the sword,
(Actsxii. i.) When this James stood before the judg
ment-seat, (evidently a Jewish court of orthodoxy,) his
accuser was convinced and converted, confessed Christ,-
and was carried out to execution with James. On the
way he entreated pardon of James. The latter thought
a little in silence, and then said, " Peace be with thee,"
and kissed him. (Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. Hist.Eccl. ii.
9.) Such was the first martyrdom among the Apostles-
of Israel. The king also imprisoned Peter, to prepare
a like fate for him, when Easter should be past.
King and people brought upon them a common guilt.
Its judgment appeared, when the messengers of sal
vation were taken away from Jerusalem, and when
Agrippa was carried off by a death which, typically
exhibiting the end of so many subsequent persecutors,
may serve as a warning to all tyrants.
Josephus agrees with Luke in relating (Archaeol.
xix. 7.) that the king appeared at Caesarea before his
assembled dignitaries and all the people, in a vestment
artificially woven of pure silver, and, when it glittered
in the rays of the rising sun, was greeted as a god by
his flatterers, and accepted the greeting. It was a
scene intended to be an imitation of the blasphemous
apotheosis of Caligula. Looking up, the king observed
a herald of evil in an owl, which had settled on a rope
above him, and, immediately seized with horrid tor
ments in his intestines, recognised the punishment of
his blasphemy. He died after five days of torture.

FLIGHT OF S. PETER. 9 1
In those perilous days, when one of the Apostles
had been taken, and the sword hung over Peter, the
Church of Christ at Jerusalem had no weapon but
instant prayer. (Acts xii. 5.) She obtained a double
victory in the liberation of Peter and the punishment
of the tyrant, without human aid. Peter, before his
flight, entrusted the Church to James, and escaped,
shaking off the dust of Jerusalem, "to another place."
(Acts xii. 17.) Here he disappears from the narrative.
We learn nothing from it of his subsequent labours ; so
completely is it afterwards occupied with the Apostle
to the heathen. The reason for this may be, that
Luke saw here a complete fulfilment of Peter's prin
cipal mission. Or else we must suppose that St. Luke
left his work, the Acts of the Apostles, unfinished. Yet
it is possible, from other sources, to discover the leading
events with which to fill up this great blank in the
Acts of the Apostles.

Whither did Peter go ? He could remain nowhere
in the whole kingdom of Agrippa. And yet the time
was not come for him to go to the heathen ; because we
know from the Epistle to the Galatians, that, some
time after, he still regarded it as his duty to devote
himself to the Jews. Thus were his steps directed to
the Jews in the dispersion. And the New Testament
itself leads to the conclusion that he sought them at
their chief places of abode. These were Alexandria
and Rome. Here, therefore, the statements of the
Fathers come with the greatest1 credibility to our aid,
in seeking to fill up the biography of Peter, viz. that
Peter went to Rome under Claudius and planted the

92 S. PETER AT ROME.
Church there,* and that Mark, at a later period, (as the
delegate of Peter,) founded the Church in Alexandria.f
It cannot be denied that at an early period fables
and even intentional inventions attached themselves
to the abode of Peter at Rome. His second en
counter with Simon the Sorcerer, in which there may
be some historical truth, is adorned with fabulous
matter. J His labours at two different times in that
capital, first under Claudius and then under Nero, have
been described as an episcopate of five-and-twenty
years. But, turning from these later perversions, we hold
to the oldest notices as worthy of all credit. Fables,
gradually appended, justify no one in regarding that
around which they are congregated as an invention.
The concurrent testimonies of antiquity, the very
oldest and most direct, are what we dare not reject
unless they contradict the Scriptures. And our investi
gation tends to show that, on the contrary, they, in this
case, completely harmonize with the divine record.
The Jewish colonization on the other side of the
Tiber had its origin in the year 63 b. c, when Pompey,
the conqueror of Judea, brought Aristobulus and thou
sands of captives from Judea to Rome, and there
emancipated them. From them went out afterwards
the synagogue of the Libertines, which was founded in
Judea. (Acts vi. 9.) After the death of the first Herod,
when ambassadors came from Jerusalem to plead with
Augustus against the institution of Archelaus as suc
cessor to his father, 8,000 of their fellow-countrymen,
resident in Rome, joined with them in making their
representations to Octavianus in the temple of Apollo.
* EuseUus Chronicon. t Idem hist. eccl. ii. 16.
I Hifpolytus Philosophumena, ed. E. Miller, p. 1 76.

THE JEWISH COLONY AT ROME. 93
Equally numerous in proportion must have been those
heathen in Rome who were inclined to Judaism. The
mockeries of the Roman satirists, such as Horace and
Juvenal, have reference to Roman proselytes of the
gate. In [this way rich materials were at hand for the
formation of a Christian congregation. And a remark
able foreboding of the subsequent fate of the Church at
Rome took place in the 19th year of our reckoning,.
the fourth of Tiberius. Tacitus relates (Ann. ii. 85), that
counsel was taken as to the expulsion of the Egyptian
and the Jewish worship, and the determination come
to by the assembled fathers, that 4,000 of the freed
men who were infected with this superstition, should be
carried to Sardinia to put down the robbers there,
since they were looked upon as persons whose death
would be no great loss, should they sink under the
effects of the climate. The rest were ordered to leave
Italy, unless, within a fixed period, they had renounced
their profane rites. Those called infected, were, in
fact, " Proselytes." But the Jews by birth seem also
to have been pointed at by the measure.
If, as is likely, Peter turned first to Rome, he pro
bably did so contemplating the future importance of the
city for the spreading of the Gospel among the heathen.
Yet, in the first instance, his preaching was directed to
the synagogue only. And what commotion it must
have excited there we may learn from the short but
striking testimony of Suetonius, [{l-ife of Claud, c xxv.)
" The Jews who, at the instigation of a certain
Chrestus, excited ceaseless disturbances, he (Claudius)
banished from the city." That Christians were among
those banished is proved by the Acts (xviii. 2). It
is well known that " Chrestus " was the form given by

94 THE JEWS BANISHED BY CLAUDIUS.
heathen writers to the unusual name "Christus" to change
it, with as little alteration as might be, into a well known
Greek name for a slave. A casual observer might
well imagine that the conflicts caused by the preaching
of Messiah were caused by a living disturber called
" Chrestus." The scenes which moved the emperor to
expel the Jews, may have been like those which oc
curred in Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, and else
where. From the majority the testimony of Peter met
with great opposition. The more zealous brought the
matter before the Roman tribunals. They were dis
missed, because it appeared that the courts of Rome
had no call to mix themselves up with a mere question
of Jewish doctrine. When thus foiled in their appeal,
if not before, they were guilty of excesses against those
converted to Christianity. These excesses were re
peated so as to call for the interference of the autho
rities. And thus the emperor found the welcome
occasion to follow the example of Tiberius, and expel
the whole Jewish colony. Of course no distinction
was made between Christians and Jews ; for not till the
time of Nero did men begin to see in Christianity
something more than one form of the Jewish manner
of life ; and even much later it retained its old desig
nation, vita Judaica, in the language of Roman jurists.
This banishment took place, according to Orosius,* in
the Ninth year of Claudius, the forty-ninth of our
reckoning. Ere it came so far, Peter, who was the
most in danger, must have left Rome, as we already
find him again inthe council of the Apostles at Jerusalem
(Acts xv. 7), some time before Paul met at Corinth with
* Orosius hist. vii. 6. Pearson, annates Paulini.

GOSPEL OF S. MARK. 95
Aquila, who had been then recently driven from Italy
by the imperial edict. (Acts xviii. 2.)

We must yet notice one fact connected with the be
ginning of the Church at Rome, — viz. the composition
of the Gospel by Mark. As to this also the testimony
of ancient writers agrees, in our opinion, with the con
tents of the sacred records.
John Mark, a youth belonging to the Church of Jeru
salem, and therefore originally connected with Peter, had
already accompanied Paul the Apostle to the heathen,
although only for a short distance. He left him in
order to return to his native church (Acts xiii. 13), pro
bably from want of resolution to follow him in a course
so bold and so diverse from that of Peter. The likeli
hood is that he sought out Peter again in order to serve
him with those talents for which he is commended in
Scripture. (2 Tim. iv. 11.) He found Peter in Rome.
The separation of Mark from Paul fell exactly in the
years between the flight of Peter from Palestine and
his re-appearance in the council of the Apostles.
Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14),
communicates out of the mouth of those elders among
whom he inquired for ancient traditions, the following
statement. "After Peter had openly preached and
had declared the Gospel in the Holy Ghost, those
present, many in number, requested Mark, as having
accompanied him from afar and well remembered his
words, to put Peter's communications in writing. On
this Mark composed the Gospel, and imparted it to those
who made the request, Peter, when made aware of it,

96 GOSPEL OF S. MARK.
neither objected to, nor encouraged his act." The
account bears this mark of credibility, that it is still
free from any attempt to fortify the canonical writing
of Mark with the approbation of Peter, or to represent
it as the work of Peter himself. Moreover, we find
clearly exhibited in it the original feeling of the disciples
of Christ as to putting sacred truths in writing, that
holy avoidance of indiscriminate disclosure, which has
been so unintelligible and offensive to men of later
times. But the very contents of Mark's composition
correspond with this account of its origin. His Gospel
is in fact the oldest of the four, and not only the oldest,
but the document which Matthew and Luke both em
ployed, each as the foundation of his own Gospel.
This position, long overlooked, is now more and more
recognized as well founded by all sound inquirers of
the most diverse creeds and most opposite parties.*
No one will now venture to call Mark a mere epito-
mizer of Matthew and Luke. Were his Gospel an
epitome of theirs, it would bear the marks of the
attempt to combine in one the excellencies of both;
else the labor of epitome would have been without an
object. But the very opposite is the case. We miss
the peculiarities of Matthew and Luke. We find that
which is common to both. And, therefore, were Mark's
Gospel a mere epitome of the others, we should have
a third repetition of what had been already twice re
lated, with so little additional or more exact matter,
that the intention and conduct of the writer would re
main a riddle. This difficulty disappears, and a great
* James Smith dissert, on the origin of the Gospels, 1S53.
Among the Germans, Herder, Wilke, Hitsig, Sefp, Ewald, are of
the same opinion. Among the French, Renan.

THE GOSPEL OF S. MARK. 97
step is made in threading the labyrinth of the Gospel
harmony, when we see that Mark formed the basis of
Matthew and Luke. Where they follow him, they
agree. Where they do not, — e.g. in the history of our
Lord's childhood, in His discourses, and in His ap
pearances after His resurrection, — they differ widely,
and each takes his own way. We have here the sacred
tradition in its most simple form ; in a form most akin
to the succinct narrative given by Peter and re
corded in the Acts. (Acts x. 36 — 42.) Granting
that the wonderful birth of the Redeemer had been
already related to the Apostles by the Holy Virgin
before they left Jerusalem; granting that they had
already possessed that information out of the bosom of
the holy family, which Luke has adopted in his first
and second chapters; the time to publish these
mysteries, — that Christ was conceived of the Holy
Ghost and born of the Virgin, — had not arrived. Even
though these things might be talked over within the
circle of the faithful, they were such as could not be com
mitted to writing, and exposed to the risk of coming into
strange hands. It was no less suited to the first stage
of instruction that this Gospel should contain nothing
as to the appearances and discourses of Christ after
His resurrection ; for its present conclusion (Mark xvi.
9—2 1 ) is a subsequent addition. Nay, the .greater part
of the transactions of the forty days was intended to re-
remain a mystery. Further, Mark exhibits in his style
the Hebrew type still in its purest form. He was, as
John the Presbyter says (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39), " the
interpreter of Peter,'' from whose mouth he received
communications in Hebrew. And yet side by side with
his Hebraisms we find Latinisms, and explanations of
H

98 THE GOSPEL OF S. MARK.
things in Palestine, which show that he wrote for
foreigners and in the West. In the inimitable truth,
freshness, and power of his narrative, we see the
reality of an eye witness and the peculiarity of Cephas.
Everything is in favour of the ancient opinion that
this work of Mark was essentially the Gospel of Peter.
Thus did the first of the evangelists associate himself
with the first of the Apostles. Thus was Peter, even
as to those historical notices of Christ which the Church
should inherit, that one of our Lord's disciples who laid
the foundation.
Here, then, we possess a compendium of that which
was taught by the Apostles of Israel at Jerusalem
and Rome concerning Christ during the first twenty
years. And the " primitive Gospel," which so many in
quirers have sought for, stands in our canon, adapted,
by its origin and character, to form a firm bulwark of
defence against all assaults from myth-hypotheses.
Yet Mark's Gospel was not then used in the churches,
nor apostolically sanctioned. It remained a private
writing till the death of Peter, when it was for the first
time received among the sacred books of the Church.
And this may explain why Clement of Alexandria ob
tained the erroneous impression that the Gospels con
taining the genealogies were earlier written (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. vi, 14), because they were composed before
the death of Peter. The assertion of the Presbyter
John, according to Papias, that " Mark wrote not in the
right order, and not at any length, because he wished
to give nothing of his own, but only what he had heard
from Peter, who suited his teachings to the occasion,"
is, in so far as regards the chronology, nothing but the
opinion of that witness as to the cause of [those Gospel

THE CHURCH IN ALEXANDRIA. 99
discrepancies which all admit to exist. And that opinion
is erroneous, for Mark observed the proper chronology,
while Matthew departed from it. But, even were it
otherwise, the thing would be explained by the origin
of the Gospel. And what John the Presbyter does say
about that, i.e. the relation of the Evangelist Mark to
Peter, is not opinion, but historical assertion, and
•valuable.

The Church in Alexandria was founded, or at least
builded up, by Mark (Euseb. Hist Eccl. iii. 39),
although the date of its foundation cannot be ascer
tained. The first tidings of Christ may have come
very early to the Egyptian Jews. But Mark's labours
among them must be postponed to a time when he
was no longer a youth, and when he was invested with
yet higher authority,* subsequent to the council of the
Apostles, and to the dissension between Barnabas and
Paul on his account ; therefore after the year 50. Yet it
must have been before the year 58 ; because in the be
ginning of 58 we have a generally overlooked testimony
from Paul, for the existence of the Christian Church in
Egypt. He writes to the Romans (Rom. xv. 19) that
from Jerusalem to Illyricum, i.e. to the coasts of the
Adriatic, he had fulfilled the preaching of salvation, with
the endeavour not to build on another's foundation,
but to preach Christ there where He had not yet been
named ; that he had been much hindered in coming to
Rome, but that now he had no more place in those
parts, and therefore intended to come to Rome, not
* Probably by Apostolic delegation.— Tr. H 2

100 THE CHURCH IN ALEXANDRIA.
to remain there (for there the Church was already
founded), but to pass by Rome into Spain. He could
not have thus spoken if there had been at that time
no Church in Alexandria. Egypt belonged to those
parts of which he said that there was nothing more for
him to do in them. The Church must have been
already there, founded by the Apostles to Israel, pro
bably in conjunction with Barnabas. Thus had the
Alexandrian Church a predominant Jewish origin and
character. The three metropolitan cities of Judaism,
Jerusalem, Rome, and Alexandria, had already been
changed, by the labours of Peter, into three metropo
litan cities of Christendom.
Those also of the twelve, concerning whose life,.
labours, and death, the Acts are silent, must, on leaving
Palestine, have visited first the seats of the diaspora,
and have gathered into the Churches there more Jewish
elements than Paul did. Their way led them south,
east, and north. Yet their traces have almost disap
peared, because in those parts there was no such rich
and unbroken development of ecclesiastical literature
as on the territory of Greece and Rome. It is not un
likely that some of them went forth to seek out those
numerous and powerful Jewish settlements beyond the
Euphrates of which Josephus speaks. (Bell. Jud. ii.
1 6). Thaddeus went to Edessa, Thomas to Parthia,
Bartholomew to India, Andrew to Scythia. The invita
tion of the king of Edessa to Christ, pressing Him to flee
to him, may be a fact (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. i. 13), although
the correspondence be a forgery. Indeed, it fits in well
with the Gospel of John. (John xii. 20.) Certain it is
that Edessa was the first state, the ruler of which re
ceived the Gospel, and was followed by his people, Its

THE APOSTLES TO ISRAEL. 10 1
!rking, Abgarus, seems to have been already a pro
selyte of the gate. Among the Indians, too, Pantaenus
found the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, brought thither
by Bartholomew. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 10.) This indi
cates the Judaic character of the first Christian con
gregations in the East. But all such indications are
rendered superfluous by the remarkable mixture of
Jewish customs with Christian truth, not only of old,
but at the present day, among the Christians of Syria,
and Kurdistan,* of India,f Egypt,:}: and Ethiopia. § This
was an evident consequence of the fact that the oriental
churches were gathered not by Paul, but by the first
twelve or their followers, and an evident proof that
those who agreed with Paul in believing the divinity of
¦ Christ, and acknowledging the calling of the heathen,
might yet retain a great part of the Mosaic institutions.
The Gospel of Mark, although the oldest New Tes
tament writing, is probably not the only one belonging
to the first period of the apostolic age. The Epistle
of James has good claim to be regarded as almost
equally old, being the encyclical address by the bishop
of Jerusalem, and confined entirely to the Judaeo-
Christian sphere. Those addressed were Israelites
who believed in Christ, not believing and unbelieving
Jews without distinction, (for they are addressed as
regenerate and first fruits of the new creation,) yet not
Israelites and Greeks together. They called their
assembly not yet Ecclesia, but Synagogue, as after-
* Dr. Asakel Grant, the Nestorians.
t James Hough, the History of Christianity in India, 1839.
% Wansleb, histoire de l'eglise d'Alexandrie : Paris, 1677.
•f Sam. Gobat, Journal of aThree Years Residence in Abyssinia, 1834.

102 THE EPISTLE OF S. JAMES.
wards was noticed in the Nazarenes. We read not a
word as yet of their relation to a Church gathered out of
the nations. There is as yet no mention of that contest
about circumcision and other ceremonies of the law,
which commenced at Antioch previous to the year 50.
Indeed, it seems as if the Epistle had been written
before the Greek Church founded by Paul had come
into existence. And, if that Church existed, its amalga
mation with the Churches of James was obviously
neither then effected nor presently contemplated. The
subject of exhortation was quite different; James speaks
of the poverty which oppressed these Jewish Churches,
and their oppression at the hands of rich and influen
tial unbelieving Jews. The Churches of Judea were
poor from the beginning. In addition, they under
went that spoliation of which the Epistle to the
Hebrews speaks (Heb. x. 34), a confiscation decreed
by the Sanhedrin, or executed by the people in a time
of disorder. They were insulted and brought before
heathen tribunals by their brethren for the name of
Christ. James announces to the rich, who thus slew the
righteous, a day of judgment ; and comforts the op
pressed with the speedy return of the Lord. We may
easily recognize here the Sadducean High Priests, who
had exercised their tyranny in Judea. (James ii. 6, 7 ;
v. 1 .) The prophetic threatenings also pointed to the des
truction of Jerusalem, foretold by Christ. The language
which was appropriate in the years immediately pre
ceding the Jewish war, after the execution of the writer of
this Epistle, James the Just, was not without its appli
cation to an earlier period, after the death of Stephen,
and of James the son of Zebedee.
Moreover, the form of Christian truth in this Epistle-

THE EPISTLE OF S. JAMES. 1 03
points to an early date. James labors to purify the
Churches from all the moral evils of Pharisaism and
Judaism. The atonement through Christ's death and
the heavenly priesthood of the risen One, are not
mentioned. The time for the abolition of the earthly
sacrifice and priesthood, and for the liberation of the
churches therefrom, was not come. The faithful had
for their first duty, to become Israelites indeed, ful-
fillers of the law, in the spirit of liberty, free from
all impure zeal, from the self-deception of those who
hear the law and do it not, from the ambition to be
teachers, from the abuse of the tongue, from vain
swearing, from the preference of the rich, and from
godless plans for gain; all dark points in the usual
character of the Jew. Above all, they had to lay aside
their pride of orthodoxy, and the hope of being justified
by a faith without fruits. James does not here contend,
either against Paul's doctrine, or against its abuse
(James ii. 14), but against the dead orthodoxy of the
Jews. They trusted to the possession and knowledge
of the law. As Abraham, sprung from idolaters, and
as Rahab, had been justified by faith in the one God,
these concluded that they were sure of salvation,
because they were monotheists. This error could the
more easily be carried over by them into the Christian
Churches, in that it was an easy matter for many Jews to
acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, without any radical
change of heart ; whereas the heathen who entered the
Church must have undergone a most decided illumi
nation and cleansing. Against all this James contends,
not indeed as Paul would have done, but as Christ
actually had done. His Epistle is the counterpart of
the sermon on the Mount, both in general and in detail.

104 THE EPISTLE OF S. JAMES.
As there Christ, so here James, contends against
Pharisaism, and insists on the perfect law of liberty.
And the Epistle takes the same place among the
canonical Epistles, which the sermon on the Mount does
among the discourses of the Lord.
It did not form part of the collection of Scriptures
which Graeco-Roman Christendom recognized as canoni
cal in the second century. For the heathen Churches,
James the bishop was no such authority as the
Apostle who had founded them. Yet the Syrian Church
possessed the Epistle. The Peschito contains it. And,
as appears from Clement of Rome and Hermas, it was
known at Rome also at the end of the apostolic age.
This evidently harmonizes with the original destiny of
the Epistle. Not till the time of Clement of Alexandria,
when seven catholic Epistles were put together, did it
come prominently before the Graeco-Roman Churches.
And not sooner than the end of the fourth century did
it obtain that acknowledgment from the whole Church
which is due to its undoubted inspiration. It may be
that its ultimate reception was recommended by the
opinion propagated by Jerome, that James the bishop,
the brother of the Lord, was identical with James the
Apostle, the son of Alphaeus.
The twelve tribes scattered abroad, to whom James
wrote, were the spiritual Israel which then came forth
out of the husk of Israel after the flesh — not yet the
Church in her heavenly exaltation above" all diversities
of descent, but the kernel of the twelve tribes of Israel,
separated and purified by the Gospel — a body, which
although chiefly resident in the Holy Land,, felt them
selves nevertheless in a strange land, in the diaspora,
because their country and the supreme power on earth

S. JAMES'S EPISCOPAL STANDING. IO5
were both in the hands of the adversaries of Christ.
They were, in the first instance, the Churches of Judea,
Persea, Galilee, and Samaria ; but more remotely also
the Christian communities in the Jewish colonies, in
Syria, in Rome, and perhaps in Egypt. As soon as such
Churches were founded by the Apostles, and the
Apostles went on further, these needed to be placed
under an overseer, and to be referred to a centre on
which they might rest. The Epistle of James appears
to confirm the view that he really had such a place
towards, and care over churches at a distance from
Jerusalem, as tradition assigns to him.
The pictures drawn of James, as bishop of bishops,
and as christian high priest, in the writings of both
the orthodox and the heretical Jewish Christians at
a later period, are by no means utterly unwarranted.
His relation to all Israelite congregations really con
tained the buddings of an episcopate over all Christian
congregations. And the later claim of the bishop
of Rome to such a place was not the fruit of an
entirely new idea. Nor is the statement of Eusebius un
important (Hist. Eccl. vii. 19), that the episcopal chair of
James was preserved as a relic in Jerusalem, a symbol
of the central episcopal authority then arising. If we
suppose the casej that, while the apostleship ceased,
Jerusalem had been preserved, and the Judaic part of the
Church kept distinct from that created by Paul's labors,
we should have probably had a fully developed primacy
in the bishops of Jerusalem permanently established
over all Judaic Churches throughout the world. Jeru
salem, however, fell. The Judaic Churches decayed.
The heathen Capital became the focus of Christianity.
And, there, in the absence of the right apostolic govern-

106 s. james's episcopal standing,
ment, a new supreme episcopal authority sought at
a later period to uplift itself over the Catholic
Church.*

* It is here instructive to observe, how, in the absence of Apostles,
the earliest and clearest authority for Episcopacy is also the
authority for Papacy. The episcopal office was not intended to exist
independent of apostolic rule. Apostolic rule over bishops is a
thing demanded by the very nature of the Church. And nothing but
the presence of Apostles can prevent the demand from being
supplied, either by the exaggeration of a bishop into an illegitimate
primate, or by submission to some authority extraneous to the
Church, as a means of uniting, upholding, and controlling bishops.
In this respect Judaism continued, even when already Christianized,.
to furnish, as of old, a type of Christendom. — Tr.

107

CHAPTER II.

THE LABOURS OF S. PAUL.

Long before the twelve had finished their work
among the Jews, Paul was called and sent before them
to the heathen. Christ accelerated the illumination of
the heathen by an act of which His disciples had not
dreamed. Peter and his associates laboured yet to
convert the Jews, when they saw with astonishment the
rise of a work among the heathen, which left no doubt
in their minds that Paul had as certainly received
apostleship to the heathen as Peter to the Jews.

By a remarkable Divine Providence the whole pre
vious life of the young man of Tarsus had served to
prepare him for the calling of which he himself was
still ignorant. He had received, in a manner superior
to that of his contemporaries, early education at once
in Greek and in Hebrew learning. As in Athens, so in
Tarsus, flourished schools of Greek science, with only
this difference, that while strangers streamed to Athens,
the citizens of Tarsus sent their sons to the schools
of the philosophers, rhetorists, and grammatists, that
they might be afterwards sent out to foreign parts as
teachers of science. (Strabo. Geogr. xiv. p. 991.)
Thus, it is more than probable, that Paul had, as a

io8

boy, taken part in the Greek studies of his native
city. And this supposition is confirmed not only by
his quotations from Aratus and Cleanthes, Menander
and Epimenides, but by his complete possession of the
Greek language, and his truly classic, not rabbinic,
logic. The similarity of his Epistles to the Romans
and Galatians with the ethics of Aristotle, in diction
and method, is so remarkable, that it cannot be acci
dental. If Paul did not, like Justin the Martyr, clothe
his preaching in the garment of philosophy, and if he
did not use Grecian eloquence and wisdom in intro
ducing the truth among the Hellenes, it was not because
he could not, but because such a course was contrary
to his convictions.
Perhaps it was the fear lest Paul might drink in too
much the spirit of foreign philosophy, which determined
his father, a strict Israelite, in whose house the ancient
sacred language was retained, to send the youth to
Jerusalem, that he might be under Gamaliel, the head
of that school of biblical learning, which Gamaliel's
father, Hillel, founded. The statement in the Tal
mud, that Gamaliel was the only master of Hebrew
theology who was permitted to study Grecian litera
ture, indicates, not that he shared in the Alexandrian
tendencies, but that his strict Pharisaism caused that
to be regarded as innocent in him, which in another
would have been accounted dangerous. This step suc
ceeded in filling Saul with admiration for the law and
for the hope of his fathers, and with that submission to
the traditions of Moses and the elders, which the Pha
risees regarded as the great condition of blessing. His
teachers imparted to him their hatred against the cause
of Christ ; and, as usual, he went beyond them. Great

S. PAUL'S CONVERSION. IO9
as was his "guilt in persecuting the disciples of Christ,
the ignorance in which he was kept, through reverence
for his teachers, was an excuse which made his con
version possible. That which he assailed was that
which he afterwards preached. He found already in
the Christian Church that which formed the basis of his
own teaching— the application of the Gospel to all, —
and the concomitant truth of Christ's exaltation and
divine dignity as Redeemer of the human race, one
alike nigh unto all. In the nascent negation of Mosaism
he saw the decay of all the hopes of Israel. And
he meant to contend for Israel's future Messiah, while
persecuting Him who had come and His disciples. Not
only his enthusiasm and talents, but probably also his
descent from a family distinguished by the right of
Roman citizenship, made him, while unconverted, a
valuable instrument for the Sanhedrin.

Jesus appeared to him. The majesty and holiness of
the glorified One annihilated his unchastened natural
strength. The mildness of his Lord's words turned his
heart. And all the impressions of truth and innocence
made upon him by the persecuted, especially by
Stephen, now found full and unresisted operation. As
if in satisfaction to the disciples at Damascus, whom he
had been about to injure, he was directed to one of
them for the washing of regeneration and the comfort
of the Holy Ghost. And, thus cleansed, thus united to
Christ, he found that peace and power which he had
sought in vain under the law.
Paul himself bears witness that the risen Christ had

no s. Paul's conversion.
appeared to him as really and bodily as He had to the
other disciples during the forty days, (i Cor. xv. S.)
The companions of Paul had an experience similar to
that of the guardians of the grave at the moment of our
Lord's resurrection. (Acts ix. 7; xxii. 9; xxvi. 14.)
They who venture to apply the critique of their semi-
naturalism to this appearance of Christ, ought to weigh
the consequences of doing so : for, if Paul was mistakan
here, his whole faith and labours, as the founder of the
Church among the heathen, were mere fanaticism.
And they who, as avowed naturalists, see nothing in
this event but a sudden transition of a choleric nature
from one extreme to another, ought to see, that although
many an ascete has gone over to lawlessness, and many
a devotee to infidelity, or vice versa, such a theory is
here inadmissible, unless it can be shown that Saul
became a destroyer of the law and an enemy of Israel
after his conversion. So far from this, Paul displays a
moderation and wisdom, a moral purity, and a right
estimate of those who remained where he had been,
which could be nothing but the fruit of the grace of
God. The same man, who formerly was a narrow and
cruel persecutor of an harmless people, utters the praise
of love and charity in words unparalleled in all religious
literature. 1 Corinth, xiii.

Our Lord immediately on his appearing to Saul said,
" I send thee to the Gentiles." (Acts xxvi. 17.) It is
not easy to say how far these words conveyed a revela
tion of his future office as Apostle. This is certain,
that he did not attain to the exercise of the apostolic
office in its full sense till after long preparation and

s. paul's career after his conversion. iii
training. And we shall proceed to trace the steps of
his outward and inward development until he arrived
at the full height of his calling.
No sooner was he converted, than he, as a Rabbi, tes
tified in the synagogue at Damascus for the Messiah.
(Acts ix. 20.) He fled to Arabia (Gal. i. 17), in order,
as it appears, to find a refuge from the persecutions of
the Jews, with king Aretas. Introduced byjBarnabas, he
made the personal acquaintance of Peter and James at
Jerusalem. (Acts ix. 27; Gal. i. 18, 19.) But his only
work of teaching there was in the synagogue. The
Churches did not yet venture to believe that their prayers
for the persecutor had been answered. In a few days he
was forced to flee • to Tarsus, where he remained con
cealed as a lay member of the Church, until Barnabas,
who was the first rightly to recognize him, took him
to Antioch, where we find him labouring as a Christian
prophet and teacher (Acts xi. 25 ; xiii. 1) in the Church
there recently gathered out of the heathen. During the
persecution by Herod Agrippa L, which drove Peter out
of Judea, Paul tarried with Barnabas at Jerusalem,
whither he had brought those gifts by which the Church
at Antioch expressed its thankfulness for the heavenly
blessings which had flowed to it from the mother
Church. (Acts xi. 30.) Thereafter came that call of
the Holy Ghost to him and Barnabas at Antioch (Acts
-xiii. 2), which warranted him to pass as converter of the
heathen into the regions of the West, which he had
long had upon his heart. And here, for the first time,
do we find those fruits of his labours in Cyprus, Pisidia,
and Lycaonia, which attested his apostleship. (Acts
xiii. xiv.) Such is the series of outward events in this
part of his life. His cotemporary inward experience

112 REVELATIONS TO S. PAUL.
is so wrapped in mystery as to be almost beyond the
reach of inquiry.
When he joined the communion of the faithful he
drank from the rich common stream of Christian tradi
tion, which was conveyed to him both by the holy
rites of the Church and probably also by some written
records. A remarkable providence kept him from in
tercourse with those who were Apostles before him, so
that he could afterwards assert that he received his
Gospel without their intervention. (Gal. i. n, 12.)
We learn from the Acts, that at his first illumination
he was informed by repeated heavenly visions as to
the subject of his testimony. (Acts xxvi. 27.) But we
know too little of these supernatural communications
to determine from them only what is to be understood
by that " Gospel " of which, in writing to the Galatians,
he states that he had received, and learned it not from
men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. We can
hardly confine it to mere historical particulars, such as
the words of institution at the sacrament of the altar,
or the appearances of the Lord after His resurrection,
which he refers to in the first Epistle to the Corin
thians in similar terms, i. e. " I have received from
the Lord." "I have delivered to you that which I
received." (1 Cor. xi. 23 ; xv. 3.) The Gospel super-
naturally communicated to him could be nothing merely
common to all Christian preachers, although the living
revelation of Christ enabled him to separate the im
portant from the unimportant, the true from the false,
in tradition, and to apprehend the depth of the truth.
It must have been something peculiar to him, by which
he was distinguished not only from other teachers but
from the twelve Apostles. And this was — his insight

S. PAULS GOSPEL. 1 1 3
into divine purposes as to Israel and the Heathen;
his profound apprehension of the great facts of Christ's
history, especially of His death and resurrection ; his
glance into the hidden glory and the future manifesta
tion of the Christian Church. This he calls the " mystery
of Christ," which he had to declare; (Eph. iii. 4;)
that the heathen were fellow-heirs, and partakers in
one body of the promise of God in Christ; and that
even to the heavenly powers the manifold wisdom of
God should be known through the Church. In one
word, the great truth of the Church, not as a continua
tion and improvement of the ancient covenant people ;
or as a temporary substitute for the same, but as some
thing much higher and more glorious; one with its
heavenly head ; raised up with Christ and seated with
Him in heavenly places ; — this, with all its consequences
for the faithful, was the new thing, which was not dis
closed to the other Apostles as it was to Paul. Such
are the truths which appear in the Epistles to the Ephe-
sians and Colossians. They stand also in the most
intimate connexion with his teaching to the Romans and
Galatians. By faith are we all justified, as Abraham.
(Rom. iv. ii; Gal. iii. 28.) By baptism do we put on
Christ, so as to be all one in Him (Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal.
iv. 27.) The works of the law fade before the bright
ness of the righteousness of Christ. We have what no
legal effort could attain to. Christ the risen One lives
in us. In Him all distinction between circumcision
and uncircumcision vanishes before higher privileges.
To make circumcision and the ceremonial law the con
dition of salvation were a denial of the holiness and
dignity of the baptized. All such truths, although
proximately addressed to the individual, exalted to

114 s- PAULS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY.
be a child of God, are combined together in the great
mystery of the Church revealed to Paul. That vision
to which he alludes in his second Epistle to the Corin
thians (2 Cor. xii. i), and which forms one of the most
important passages in his life, stood, if we mistake not,
in connexion therewith. He was thereby caught up into
the third heavens, and saw, as already present, that
glory of the Church, still hidden, but soon to be re
vealed, which John afterwards beheld in the wonderful
visions of the Apocalypse.
Now, if we consider the date of Paul's vision, we
may approach to the solution of the question, when he
began to exercise his apostleship. Fourteen years before
the end of 57, the date of the second Epistle to the
Corinthians, i.e., in the beginning of the year 44, Paul
had this vision. At the time when he remained in Jeru
salem during that persecution which cost James the
elder his life, and forced Peter to flee; at the time
when Christ Himself turned away from the city in which
the blood of His witnesses was shed ; Paul was full of
longing to enlighten his former companions in guilt.
But they were shut up. This appears to have been the
occasion on which that happened to him which he relates
to the Hebrew people in the twenty-second chapter
of Acts. He prayed in the temple ; for whom, if not
for his people ? Jesus appeared to him, in token that
God had not till then forsaken the holy place of Israel ;
yet with the command then to depart, and with the
mission to the distant heathen. (Acts xxii. 17 — 21.)
This seems to have been the occasion of his receiving
that insight into the heavenly calling of the Church,
which led the way for his apostolic action. The time
for its commencement was come. His work among the

s. paul's apostolic ministry. 115
heathen was a testimony against the Jews. It aggra
vated their bitterness and delusion. But it could tarry
no longer. They had deserved nothing else. The last
point of the turning had arrived.
Closely following upon these events in Jerusalem,
comes the call of the Holy Ghost to Barnabas and
Paul. And although the concise narrative in the Acts
does not of itself enable us to conclude whether the
Church and Paul himself were then fully instructed as
to his apostolic dignity or not, the historical circum
stances leave little doubt that he then entered upon
apostolic functions. From that time forward his works
among the heathen formed the counterpart to those of
Peter among the Jews, and fully certified his inde
pendent apostleship. Luke intentionally draws a paral
lel, from the thirteenth chapter of the Acts onwards,
between the career of the two, in almost every particular.
He describes them like a Christian Plutarch. But he
was not the first discoverer of this comparison. For,
what persuaded James, Peter, and John, after the first
apostolic journey of Paul and Barnabas, that the word
of salvation for the heathen was committed to Paul, but
their perception that He who had been mighty in Peter
towards the Jews was equally mighty in Paul toward
the heathen? (Gal. ii. 7 — 9.) Paul reports this in his
Epistle to the Galatians. The similarity of action
was a reality. Paul seems to have adverted to it as an
existing thing in the report which he made at Jeru
salem. (Acts xv. 12.) He himself had an important
share in the selection of matter for the writing of Luke.
And thus the Acts as a whole, in so far as they draw a
parallel between the two Apostles, and in particular the
account given in the Acts of Paul's first journey, which
1 2

1 1 6 s. paul's apostolic ministry.
no man in his sound reason can regard as fiction, derive
from the Epistle to the Galatians a striking confirmation.
Luke plainly writes to reconcile the Jewish Christians
with Paul. He lays no stress on Paul's claim to like
dignity with Peter, which it would have been hard for
them to acknowledge. He would persuade the reader
not by the title of the man, but by his work. The
Epistle to the Galatians, again, opens to us the whole
amount of his claims. He is an Apostle, not of men,
nor by man (Gal. i. i), equal in his ministry to Peter,
and entitled to withstand him on the territory of Gentile
Christianity. (Gal. ii. n.) He nowhere grounds his
claim upon a vacancy in the apostolic college. The
place of Judas had been legitimately and adequately
filled up by Matthias. (Acts i. 26.) It is a mistake to
say that the appointment of Matthias had not the sanc
tion of Christ. He sanctioned it by the sending of the
Spirit, to which act the completion of the number
twelve was a pre-requisite ; and the whole subsequent
narrative pre-supposes the validity of this co-operation.
Nowhere does Paul allude to any vacancy, by the
death of James or otherwise, as making way for him
to a place among the twelve. And as little can he be
regarded as a thirteenth, an addition or appendage to
the original apostleship. He was the first of a new
series — the nucleus of a new apostleship. On no other
supposition was he warranted to claim an entire and
strict equality with Peter, the pillar of the first apostle
ship. Whether this second apostleship, appointed to
gather and perfect the Church from among the Gentiles,
was seen in others beside Paul, is a question, the deci
sion of which cannot affect what we have now said.
Yet we may observe, that Barnabas, the Levite of Cyp-

PAUL AND BARNABAS APOSTLES TO THE GENTILES. 117
rus, a member of the original Jewish Church, a man of
mildness, whose efforts were directed to reconcile it with
the new Gentile Churches, was sent by the Apostles at
Jerusalem, as legate to the congregation at Antioch,
and assumed on such a mission an almost apostolic place
like that of James. After he had stood for a time at
the head of the Church in the then metropolis of Gentile
Christendom, as James had in the Jewish metropolis, he
was called, together with Paul, and acted with him.
And although, after having stood even higher than Paul,
he was ultimately transcended by him, yet both alike are
represented as brothers in office, as Apostles to the
heathen. This relation between them appears as clearly
from the Epistles of Paul as from the Acts. In the
latter, Paul is only twice called an Apostle, and that
in connexion with Barnabas (Acts xiv. 4 — 14), so that
the reader is almost constrained either to regard
Barnabas also as an Apostle, or to doubt whether Paul
was properly one. The Greek, and Roman Churches
have preserved the truth in their commemoration, by
styling Barnabas an Apostle in their martyrology.
Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, and Jerome, call
him so.* And the Syrian Christians celebrate him
under the like title.t
Paul, although Apostle to the Gentiles, appears to
have throughout held himself bound in every place to
carry the message of salvation first to the Jews there
resident. His Epistles treat the Gospel as belonging
* Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l'hist. ecclesiastique, i. 3,
1706, p. 1047.
f The Anglican, and both the Scottish and American Episcopal
Churches, celebrate the feast of St. Barnabas as an Apostle on the
Mth of June. — Tr.

1 18 s. paul's behaviour towards the jews.
first to the Jews, and also to the Greeks. (Rom. i. 16.)'
Those among whom Christ had been destined to appear,.
were those also among whom He was to be first
preached. (Rom. xv. 8.) The Apostle longed after
and felt for his people as Moses had done. He was
willing to be himself accursed from Christ, if he could
thereby deliver his brethren after the flesh. (Rom. ix.
1.) Neither his mission to the heathen world, nor his
compact with Peter, could loosen his obligation to them.
And, independently of this, his regard to the success of
the Gospel led him to use his privilege as a scribe by
presenting himself everywhere in the synagogue, which
was by its very existence a preparation for a Christian
Church, like an oasis of moral life round which, in the
desert of heathenism, those Gentiles who feared God,
the most accessible of all men for the truth, had
gathered. It was fitting that to such persons the full
light should proceed from that quarter where they had
first observed the dawn. They were the link of com
munication with the heathen who yet sat in perfect
darkness. They generally formed the centres of the
Churches which Paul planted. And yet, from being
accustomed to look reverently on Judaism as clothed
with divine authority, they were peculiarly exposed to
the danger of Judaizing.
When Paul and Barnabas returned from their travels
through Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, to
Antioch, they could say that God had opened the door of
faith to the heathen. (Actsxiv. 27.) The apostleship to
the Gentiles had opened the closed gate to the kingdom
of heaven, for the entrance of multitudes. Churches full
of the Holy Ghost were founded. The Epistle to the
Galatians refers to the miracles and sufferings of Paul

THE CHURCHES IN GALATIA. II9
among them. (Gal. iii. 5, iv. 13,19.) It is more than pro
bable that these Churches of Galatia, which were so
early led astray by Judaizing teachers, were not con
gregations in the Gallo-Grecian cities, such as Ancyra,
Pessinus, Gordium, or Tavium (and we may conclude
from the Acts that Paul never entered the country of the
Celto-Germanic immigrants), but rather the Churches
planted by Paul and Barnabas together, in Iconium,
Lystra, and Derbe, and, perhaps, also that at Antioch
in Pisidia; since, after the death of the last Galatian
king Amyntas, Iconium and thirteen neighbouring
cities were incorporated with the Roman province of
Galatia. (Dio Cassius, xlix. 32 ; liii. 26 ; Strabo, xii.
5690

Immediately upon the return of Paul to Antioch
commenced that contest with the Judaists which occu
pied him so much. (Acts xv. 1.) Christianized Phari
sees, from the Church in Jerusalem, had come to
Antioch, and wished to impose on the Gentile converts
the Mosaic law as a condition of salvation. They were
false brethren crept in, who could show no warrant for
teaching in that Church. Their bold innovations con
tradicted the wholesome customs previously observed.
The Church was shaken. And Paul, with Barnabas,
went to the council at Jerusalem, to procure a definitive
settlement of the matter. Paul appears to have come
unwillingly to this determination. A revelation was
needed to make him yield to the wishes of the flock.
(Gal. ii. 2.) In order to give practical proof of the
right of the heathen to haye their sanctification recog-

120 THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM.
nized without the ceremonial law, he took with him
Titus, an uncircumcised man, perhaps already a fellow-
teacher. And this act was crowned with success.
For when the false teachers wished to force circum
cision upon Titus, the Apostles at Jerusalem, who had to
decide, declined, as Paul reports, to sanction such an
imposition, and, evidently after deliberation on the
matter, freed Titus from all obligation to be circum
cised. (Gal. ii. 3.)
In the public assembly of the Apostles, Peter, as
president, had the first word. (Actsxv. 7.) He solemnly
recognized the purifying of the heathen by faith, con
firmed by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost ; regarding
it as a doubting of God's acts, and a tempting of God,
to impose on them, by way of condition, the yoke of
Moses. Barnabas and Paul, in their turn, related the
corresponding doings of the Lord among the subjects
of their ministry. James, from whom, according to his
position and manner of life, the greatest opposition
might have been expected, had the last word. (Acts
xv. 13.) Yet even he acknowledged that the divine
election of a people from among the Gentiles, distinct
from Israel, was in accordance with the prophecies.
And, seeing that the synagogue, through which Moses
had in every city those who preached him, sufficiently
provided for the continuance of Mosaism, he concluded
that the only conditions of communion to be required
of the converted heathen, were abstinence from meats
offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and
from fornication. Without further explanation or proof
this remarkable proposal was accepted, decreed, and
published. (Acts xv. 20, 28 ; xxi. 25.) Puzzling as
it may seem to us, it must have been intelligible and

DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. 121
evident for the Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch at
the time. And it was so, because it contained, as all
inquirers agree, no new requirements, nothing more
than what had long been imposed, under the name of
the commandments of Noah, upon the strangers of
the gate ; although the Talmud nowhere contains
exactly the same number of commandments. The
Gentile Christians, of whom a great proportion had
already undertaken these pledges, were all bound to
take them, but were, in doing so, to enjoy as Christians
a recognition which the Jew had denied to the
strangers of the gate; for none but the strict proselyte
of righteousness had the same approach as the Jew to
holy things. This decision, unanimously adopted by
the council, and confirmed by the spirit of prophecy, was
sent, to the Churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, by
the hands of Barnabas aud Paul, Judas and Silas, and
afterwards delivered by Paul and Silas to the Galatian
Churches. (Acts xv. 23 ; xvi. 4.)
But now arise the weighty questions. How comes
it, that, after all this, Paul makes no use whatever of
this decision, evidently so applicable to the case, in his
rebuke to the Galatians for their return to Judaistic
errors? How comes it, that, having to answer the
question as to meats offered in sacrifice, in his first
Epistle to the Corinthians, he does not mention this
decision already given ? And how comes it, that his
report of his journey to Jerusalem in the Epistle to the
Galatians runs so differently from the narrative in the
Acts? We shall first take up the last of these questions,
and endeavour to place in its true light the text of
Paul's Epistle, which has in these days been converted

122 S. PAULS UNDERSTANDING WITH THE OTHER APOSTLES.
by false exposition into a source and warrant for the-
most extravagant and pernicious critical errors.
We assume that he speaks of the same journey as
that narrated in the Acts. It could not have been a
prior one ; because acts which proved the apostleship
of Paul must already have been performed. The jour
ney related in Acts xiii. and xiv., must have been then
over. Neither could it be a subsequent one ; because
immediately after the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Bar
nabas disagree : whereas, here, they are still united.
Further, the two accounts correspond in all important
points — the same controversy — the same immediate
occasion in the efforts of the Judaists — Peter and James
the same chief actors — and the same testimony by Paul
and Barnabas to their success among the heathen.
The journeys were clearly identical. But no human
acumen could prove that the deliberations and deter
minations were.
Now this, closely examined, is the very key to the
solution of the difficulty. The Acts treat of the rights
and duties of Gentile Christians. They do not speak of
Paul's apostleship. The decree does not call him an
Apostle. On the other hand, the discussion described to
the Galatians relates solely to his apostleship. No allu
sion is there made to the demands made on the Gentile
converts. The full recognition of Paul's independent
apostleship, and the agreement as to the partition of
labour, are there given as the results of the conference
at Jerusalem. No two things can be conceived more
different. But Paul himself (Gal. ii. 2) uses a phrase
which renders clear the relation between the two trans
actions. The understanding come to regarding his
apostolic office occurred in private (rar' ISiav), after

s. paul's understanding with the other apostles. 123
the public settlement of the question as to the Syrian
Christians. And why so ? The questions were akin
to each other, and yet very different. It was much
more difficult to recognize Paul's apostleship than the
rights of the Gentiles. But the two questions could
be kept apart. The former could be left over, in deciding
the latter. Both Paul and Peter were probably anxious
to spare the faithful at large the trial of a question for
which they were not prepared, and of which they
were not the immediate judges. The matter was
brought before those only, who, by virtue of their
office, were called upon to decide, and to take a defi
nite position towards Paul and Barnabas. It appears
that no one in the Jerusalem Church had as yet had
a just view of the new claim to apostleship. James,
Peter, and John, alone, were enabled by the exercise
of an admirable self-denial, and by illumination from
above, to recognize the wonderful fact, that, without
their intervention, an Apostle in the fullest sense had
appeared, invested with the same mission and authority
from the risen Lord, for the heathen, as Peter had
received from Him while on earth for the Jews (Gal. ii.
7, 8), and responsible, like Peter, to Christ alone.
This acknowledgment paved the way to an agreement
on all subsidiary questions. When the Apostles took
leave of each other, it was no separation such as when
Luther, in the Castle of Marburg, refused the hand
of Zwingli, or when James Andreae refused that of
Theodor Beza, at Montbeliard. Nothing but an un
paralleled misconstruction can represent the brotherly
conclusion of the conference, related by Paul (Gal. ii.
9, 10), as a mere armistice resulting from perplexity
and exhaustion ; as if the three had said to the two :

124 s- PAULS INDEPENDENT MINISTRY.
Do what you like ; intrude not into our province ; and
we shall let the heathen alone. In such a case, the
giving of the right-hand would have been anything but
a sign of communion — a mere act of hypocrisy or
indifference. We shall now find some light thrown upon the
two other questions . And first, upon that arising from
the silence of the Acts. When Luke wrote with a view
to reconcile the Jewish Christians, very few of them
could have conceived of an independent apostleship
in Paul.* And the same grounds which moved Paul
to avoid drawing the Jerusalem Church into this con
troversy, induced the historian to avoid puzzling his
readers by alluding to it, in their unprepared condition.
But we now also see how Paul came to pass over this
decree in his Epistles. He was as independent in his
guidance of the Churches as Peter was in his. And
his independence was acknowledged. He was tram
melled by no human authority and responsible to none.t
This he asserted in Galatia and in Corinth. The time
was come for him to vindicate his apostleship on every
hand. He had no need, in correcting errors, to quote
the decrees of others. His word as an Apostle of Christ
* And yet no more a rival apostleship than his Gospel was a
rival Gospel. — Tr.
f Paul's own conduct on other occasions as well as every true
principle of Church government shews, that this must not be under
stood as implying that each Apostle, like an exaggerated or
universal Bishop, can plead the exclusive authority of the Lord, as
entitling him to follow a course of his own without regard to the
mind of Christ in the Apostolic College, by which the Church is
guided in unity. But Paul was the deputy of no other Apostle, and
his apostleship was not subordinate to that of the first twelve, or
amenable to it. — Tr.

S. PAULS INDEPENDENT MINISTRY. 125
to the heathen was decree sufficient for them. At the
very time when his authority was questioned by the
Churches which he himself had planted, it would have
been a fatal concession, had he cited to them another
power than his own, as their guide. On the other hand,
he never thought of contradicting the moderate demands
made by the Jerusalem Council on the Gentiles, or of
allowing any Christian to act, as even a stranger of the
gate ought not to have done. We do not know whether
his explanations as to meats offered in sacrifice (i Cor.
viii. I ; x. 23) entirely accorded with those considerations
which dictated the Jerusalem decree. But the result,
adverse to the eating of such meats, was the same in
both cases. He could hardly have taught otherwise as
to the use of blood and things strangled ; seeing that
the Greek Church still holds to their prohibition. As
to fornication, whether it meant marriage within for
bidden degrees or marriage with heathen, the agree
ment is undoubted.

This Council of the Apostles recognized the unity of
the two great factors of the Church, and expressed a
principle, which, if followed out, would realize that
unity in the body which was already seen in its heads.
Yet every one not blind to history must see that the
Churches were yet far from fully apprehending or
applying the great idea of unity in Christ, and that,
in the Apostles themselves, that unity was not pre
served entire. We read of sad scenes shortly after at
Antioch, — the contradiction of Peter by Paul, and the
dispute of the latter with Barnabas. (Gal. ii. 1 1 ; Acts
xv. 36.)

126 S. PETER OPPOSED BY S. PAUL.
The fault of Peter at Antioch and its exposure by
Paul were no trifles, either in their essence or in their
consequences. On these things the Ebionites have
rested their hardest accusation against Paul, the Gnos
tics their prejudices against Peter and the other Apostles
to Israel, the Rationalists their arguments against in
spiration, and the most modern perverters of criticism
their dream as to the constant unremoved variance
between the two great Apostles. And certainly the
usual answers to such objections have been anything
but successful. Clemens Alexandrinus interpolates a
second Cephas, against whom Paul's reproaches were
directed. Tertullian sees a fault in the conduct,
merely, not in the doctrine, of Peter ; as if actions did
not teach. And Jerome, following certain Greeks5
imagines a concerted instructive sham-fight between
the two ; an idea, however, which Augustine scouts.
But how stood the matter in truth ? Peter paid a
first visit to the metropolis of Gentile Christianity, ap
parently with no intention to act as a rival to Paul in
apostolic work. On his arrival, he ate with the Gentile
believers, i.e. he united with them in Eucharist and
Agape, and thus recognized them as sanctified. Then
came certain frpm the Church of James, no doubt
anxious to see how the Apostle to Israel would deport
himself in such new company, and ready to be offended
by his conduct, and to infect with their displeasure the
strict Judaists at home. For, in spite of the decree of the
Council, these might still with some reason shrink from
full communion with heathens ; as even the proselyte
of the gate, when he came to Jerusalem, had not equal
privileges in worship with the Jew. And it was not so
easy to yield to a consequence, as to see it. Indeed,

S. PETER OPPOSED BY S. PAUL. 127
we need only to look to the subsequent divisions of the
Church, (in which the adherents of one denomination,
although they dare not deny salvation to those of
another, or insist on their coming over, still refrain
conscientiously from communion with them,) in order
to find a repetition of the same state of feeling and
conduct. Peter separated himself. His example was
followed by all members of Jewish descent, even by
Barnabas himself. (Gal. ii. 13.) The rent went through
the whole flock. A sort of secession took place. Paul
was the only Israelite who continued with the Gentiles.
-Great as was the evil, dangerous as the consequences
might be, the error of Peter was natural. He shrank
at the thought of the stir and perhaps the division which
his bold step might occasion at Jerusalem. He feared
for weakening his own authority over the Churches and
losing his hold of the Jews. He] might doubt if he
had done well in coming into a situation where he
must take either one side or the other. We cannot
wonder at his yielding, though he ought to have
persisted in the course which he had once adopted,
and although by acting contrary to his own expressed
oonvictions he justly exposed himself to Paul's charge
of dissimulation.
But the apostolic office and the divine guidance of
the Church are not affected by such an event. It were
a grievous mistake to think that, because Apostles are
God's ordinance for the infallible guidance of the
Church, therefore no Apostle can err. No man has
any other assurance than that he shall lack neither
light nor power when he has to do his duty.* Peter
* Christ's guidance is the only infallible one. His infallibility

128 SEPARATION OF S. PAUL AND S. BARNABAS.
erred, because he was out of the path of duty. Paul
was in that path, and corrected him. He claimed the
same authority at Antioch which he would have yielded
to Peter at Jerusalem. Herein lies the divine guidance
of the Church, that, through the working of its whole
organism, of each part in its measure, error and evil
are checked, growth and establishment in the truth
attained. We cannot doubt that through the resolute conduct
of Paul, who rebuked Peter " before all," in a meeting
of both sections of the congregation especially sum
moned for the purpose, Peter was restored and the
schism healed. But traces of the evil are to be found
in the subsequent dissension between Paul and Barnabas.
Luke has spared the reader the details of the collision
at Antioch. But it does not follow that he has distorted
any fact which he does communicate. He states with
out reserve the discord in which the two Apostles to the
heathen parted. (Acts xv. 39.) Mark had, during
the first journey of Barnabas and Paul, after they had
gone over Cyprus and landed in Asia Minor, separated
himself from them and returned home, not from fear of
danger, but more probably from doubts as to their
mode of operation. Paul regarded him in consequence
as not fitted to be their fellow-labourer. And when
Barnabas insisted on keeping him, Paul, remembering
that Barnabas himself had for a. moment denied the
rests on His servants, only in so far as they abide in Him, — in so far
as they are in their right place — personally fitted for it — and sustained
by the rightly ordered co-operation of all other members of the body.
As no member can say to another, — I have no need of thee, — so
Apostles, although Christ's ordinance for universal and infallible
guidance, cannot fulfil their mission unless assisted by all other
ordinances and the whole Church. — Tr.

s. paul's second journey. 129
truth at Antioch, preferred to go his own way, selecting
helpers on whom he could rely, Silas the prophet, Luke
the Evangelist, who continued with him in bondage,
and Timothy, the most faithful of his disciples, whom
we at length find chief shepherd of the flock at Ephe
sus. These three were his companions on that his
second great journey which brought him into Europe.
(Acts xv. 40.)*
Silas, or Sylvanus, was one of those who by the gift
of prophecy were enabled to render to the Apostles the
most important services, and who stood next to them
in the building of the Church. (Eph. ii. 20 ; iii. 5 ;
1 Cor. xii. 28.) Through him Paul obtained, not only
light on divine truth, but communication of the divine
will, and indications from the Holy Ghost as to the
way he should take. (Acts xvi. 6, 7) When Timothy
was directed to his future calling, and Paul was in
duced to ordain him, by prophetic utterances (1 Tim.
i. 18; iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), these communications most
probably came through the mouth of Silas, in the same
way as Paul and Barnabas themselves had previously
* Here we cannot but reflect — 1st. On the efforts of the devil to
rend the body of Christ by separating first the Jewish and Gentile
Apostles, and then the two for the Gentiles. 2nd. On the ability
which Satan acquires by the sin of man to inflict on the Church
wounds against which she were otherwise proof. 3rd. On the
weakening effect of the first error of Barnabas on his subsequent
spiritual discernment and strength. 4th. On the mighty assurance
of faith, which enabled Paul in such trying circumstances to resist
his own Jewish prepossessions, and the authority both of the first of
the Apostles and of the mother Church, when his colleague in that
very apostleship which he was vindicating gave way, — an assurance
which nothing less than a. separate call could have given him ;
and, 5th. The instance of the four- fold ministry (Eph. iv. n) in
the different offices of Paul and his three companions. — Tr. K

130 s. paul's second journey.
been called by prophecy. The same seems to have
taken place as to Luke. On the entrance of the mission
into Europe Luke begins to narrate in the first person
(Acts xvi. 10], not because he had only then joined
Paul and become an eye-witness, but because he had
then received a prophetic call to preach the Gospel, and
from that time forward became a co-operator in the
things narrated.
Paul caused Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother
and a Greek father, to be circumcised, before taking
him with him. (Acts xvi. 3.) How does this accom
modation harmonize with the determined refusal of
which Paul boasted, to let Titus be circumcised ? This
difficulty was felt by the earliest fathers. Some thought
that Paul must subsequently have made a like concession
as to Titus. And so runs the old various reading of the
Epistle to the Galatians, which Tertullian cites against
Marcion (Gal. ii. 5, without the negation), but which
has evidently arisen from the vain attempt to make a
summary riddance of the contradiction, and to take from
the Gnostic enemies of the Old Testament a sup
posed sanction in that Epistle. The contradiction is
manifest. But the difference of the cases was sufficient
to justify a difference of action. In the case of Titus,
the Greek, the object was to withstand the false teachers
and protect the flock from their requisitions. In the
case of Timothy, the object was to procure admission
for him into the synagogues in which the Gospel was
not yet preached, and which Paul had no right to pass
by. Paul testifies that he himself had become a Jew
to the Jews, to win those who could not else be won.
(1 Cor. ix. 33.) He asked no more from Timothy.
And he was entitled to ask it ; because, according to

S. PAUL AND TIMOTHY. I31
the Talmud, the child should follow the mother, so that
the son of a mixed marriage, whose mother was a
a Jewess, should be circumcised; otherwise (and the
Roman Catholic Church now makes similar condi
tions), the Jewish law would not have recognized the
marriage. This had been neglected in the case of
Timothy, perhaps through the opposition of his father.
The Jews of his native place knew this ; and he would
not have been admitted among them, had Paul not
made good the omission.

Paul, Sylvanus, Luke, and Timothy, brought the
Gospel from Asia to Greece in the beginning of the
second half of the century. The longing of the in
habitants of Europe for divine aid was revealed to
Paul in a vision, and found a response in the mighty
impulse of the Spirit in himself and his companions
towards the West. His first labours in Macedonia and
Greece were richly rewarded. And it is most in
teresting to follow him in this, his invasion of the
heathen world, in Greece. (Acts xvi. n — xviii. 17.)
In Philippi, in Thessalonica, and Bercea, arose in spite
of the shortening of his stay by persecution, those
Churches which gave him the greatest joy and the
least grief. Small in number, and poor in this world,
they had endured severer persecutions than any
Churches, save those of Judea. (1 Thess. ii. 14.)
Martyrs had died in Thessalonica, concerning whose
fate Paul in his first Epistle comforted the faithful.
(1 Thess. iv. 11.) From no Church but that of Philip-
K 2

132 THE CHURCH IN MACEDONIA.
pi, did he accept offerings, even when pressed upon
him. (Phil. iv. 10.) In Corinth and Ephesus he sup
ported himself and his fellow-ministers by the labour
of his hands. (Acts xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xi. 8; Acts xx.
33— 350
The Macedonian Christians were proof against
Pharisaic errors. The prominent features of their
religion were brotherly love and the hope of Christ's
return to set up His kingdom. (1 Thess. i. 10 ; iv. 9.)
The latter had been preached among them by Paul.
It had formed the pretext of the political accusation
against him. (Acts xvii. 7.) And, before Paul's second
Epistle came as a corrective, it may have led some
to neglect their worldly callings. To the Church in
those parts, which he calls his joy and his crown, Paul,.
singularly enough, communicated very early by word
and afterwards by writing, the dark prophetic mystery
(2 Thess. ii. 3, 5) of the apostasy under the Man of Sin,
before Christ's re-appearance in glory. At the very
time when Gentile Christianity wore its loveliest aspect,
came the sad intimation, understood or not at the time,
that it should be invaded by unparalleled corruptions,
and, from being the spiritual temple of Christ, should
become the place of Anti-Christ's throne.
Paul wandered solitary through the city of Minerva
(Acts xvii. 16), in which much must have reminded him of
his native city. With holy grief he regarded the various
idols, and the wonders of art dedicated to an impure
worship. In the inscription of that altar which was
erected to an unknown God, (although not exactly
intended to designate the Almighty,) he read a con
fession of ignorance as to things divine, yet a, desire to
leave no heavenly being unhonoured. In the market-

S. PAUL AT ATHENS. 1 33
place, he daily entered, like a second Socrates, into
conversation full of wisdom with those who chanced to
meet him. Some, reminded of Socrates, brought Paul,
as their ancestors had done Socrates, into court,
although rather in idle irony than in bitter seriousness.
They took him to Mars'-hill, not at a solemn assembly
of the court, but only to hear the new doctrine, and
superficially to judge it with less disturbance. There,
beholding the Parthenon and the Temple of Theseus,
Paul testified that the Godhead did not dwell in temples
made with hands, nor could be likened to the forms of
man's fancy. There he announced a day of judgment
upon the earth, and a resurrection of the dead. Epi
curean and Stoic philosophers mocked him. The his
torian does not say whether Platonists met him, or how
they received him. But, doubtless, there were such at
Athens. And a significant tradition makes Dionysius,
judge in the Areopagus, a representative of Platonic
wisdom, that last flower of heathen philosophy, that
connecting link with Christian truth.
In Corinth (Acts xviii. i), which had recently re
covered its ancient splendour, Paul had occasion to see
the crimes of heathenism in that ripeness which he after
wards described in writing thence to the Romans ; and
he was opposed by the whole power of false Greek
culture, in its pride, in its denial of divine truth and in
its toleration of superstition and immorality. Sur
rounded by this flood of corruption, he felt oppressed
and in need of divine consolation. For a time, before
his fellow-labourers followed him from Macedonia, he
continued comparatively quiet, in the workshop of his
fellow-craftsman Aquila ; for according to the good
usage of the Rabbis, he conjoined with his Scriptural

134 S. PAUL AT CORINTH.
learning the knowledge of a handicraft, namely the
preparation of cloth for tents and cloaks from the hair
of wild goats, which abounded in his native country,
Cilicia. Soon, however, his labors in the demonstration
of the Spirit and of power were so successful, that
in this city of corruption a large congregation was
gathered, a Church in which all the excellencies, but at
the same time all the faults, of the Greek nation came
to light, as we may learn from the Epistles which he
addressed to the Corinthians on his third journey.
The Corinthian Church, excelling other Churches in
the abundance of spiritual gifts, deserved to be called
by Paul the seal of his Apostleship. (i Cor. ix. i, 2.)
But these precious gifts were turned more to the exal
tation of individuals than to the edification of the whole ;
for the holiness of the flock did not keep pace with its
light; nor did its obedience, discipline, and charity
equal its spiritual activity. None but such as Paul
could have maintained order and unity, taught the right
use of the gifts, and kept this Church from dissolution.
Its Greek frivolity was seen in its leniency to heathen
crimes, and in the foolhardy participation of some in
sacrificial feasts. Those doubts as to the resurrection^
and questions as to the nature of the resurrection body,
which Paul had to meet, were dictated, not as elsewhere,
by dark ascetic abhorrence of the corporeal, but by
Epicurean and Sadducean sentiments, and philosophical
scepticism. The morbid admiration of eloquence and
profoundness characterized not a mere party in the con
gregation, but, probably, its whole Greek components.
Paul, although he could have done so, would not minis
ter to these lusts. He confined himself the more rigidly
to the simple and dreadfully severe preaching of the

THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 1 35
crucified One, in whom the whole human nature, with
all its wisdom, was judged, and who alone, as the re
cipient of the curse on man, is our true wisdom, by
bringing unto us righteousness, sanctification, and re
demption. Such a Church was suited to become the
scene of dangerous machinations against Paul and his
apostolic labors. It caused one grief after another to
its spiritual father. His opponents, emissaries of the
Pharisaic party in Judea, must have found entrance
here also, as in Antioch and Galatia.* In Galatia they
succeeded in making both the doctrine and the office of
Paul suspected. In Corinth, which had never adopted
the Mosaic ceremonial, they could not yet do the
former. But they too surely paved the way for it by
bringing into question both his office and his character.
Hence originated that partisanship which to this day
presents some unsolved difficulties to the historical
inquirer, and leads us to ask, what was the real dis
tinction made in the assumption of the names of Paul,
Apollos, Cephas, and Christ, by the contending factions
at Corinth ?
We can understand the difference between Paulites
and Petrites. Such would the temporary parties at
Antioch have become, had they persisted in their fleshly
schism. And those also might have called themselves
after Paul, although unj ustly, who had used an offensive
freedom in regard to sacrificial meats, while the Jewish
and the scrupulous might have ranged themselves under
Peter. Some might have been actual hearers of Peter,
* One sees throughout how those distinguished by following God
to a certain measure, become, if they stand still, as it were evil spirits,
which haunt and hinder all further progress, contrary both to God
and to man. — Tr.

130 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
and indebted to him. As to the Alexandrian Apollos,
or ApoUodorus, it is generally supposed that those
addicted to clothing truth in a philosophical garb
gathered chiefly round him. But this can be admitted
only to a very limited extent. Apollos himself was
certainly not to blame for this abuse of his name.
Paul never alludes to any difference between Apollos
and himself in opinion or conduct. He was not a rheto
rician, but a serious disciple of John, and especially a
student of the Scriptures. (Acts xviii. 24.) And, if
he was a philosopher, he shared the Platonic ascetic
character of his countryman, Philo. From his sub
sequent refusal to return to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 12)
one sees how displeasing to him was the excessive
preference of some for him, who were deeply indebted
to him, and would have made him head of a party.
Lastly, as to those who called themselves after Christ,
there is no proof that they were heathenish or gnostic,
as little proof that they had done right, and still less
that they made their boast in a mystic, instead of a
historic, Christ. Their appellation is to be understood
precisely like that of the others. They were personal
disciples of Christ, who had learned from His own lips.
Why could not such have come to Corinth ? Only
twenty years after Christ's departure there were surely
many such surviving. They may have been driven
both out of Palestine and out of Rome by the scattering
of the Churches there. And they were the most dan
gerous of all Paul's adversaries ; those with whom
he maintained a severe contest in the last part of his
second Epistle. Pharisaic in spirit — proud of their
Hebrew origin, and no less so of having known Christ
after the flesh — they set Paul's whole authority at

THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 1 37
defiance. They were "the very chiefest Apostles,"
as he ironically styles them. (2 Cor. xi. 15 ; xii. 11.)
It was they who commended themselves, who tyran
nically exercised their usurped authority in the Church.
By disowning him and stealing the heart of the Church,
they forced him to boast; they found vacillation in
his purposes ; severity in his epistles ; weakness in his
presence ; fear of man, and corruption of God's Word
in his doctrine. They ascribed his very disinterested
ness, in accepting no offerings from the Church, not to
love and zeal, but to cunning. They had not then
brought forward their concealed heresies. But they
had shown enough to justify Paul in calling them false
Apostles and ministers of Satan. (2 Cor. xi. 13 — 15.)*
That such persons could find entrance, and, although
only for a time, estrange that Church from Paul which
owed all to him and had enjoyed the full blessing of his
office, is one of the saddest facts in the Apostolic age.
We may assume that he gained the victory at Corinth,
and effected that by his presence which he could not by
his letters ; for in the beginning of the year 58 he wrote
an Epistle in which he expresses the conviction that he
has completed his work there. (Rom. xv. 17, &c.)
Yet it were not to be wondered at, if this ingratitude
still lurked in the primitive Church, poisoning and
weakening its inward life.
* This view both receives confirmation from, and throws light
upon the passage in 1 Cor. ix. 1., where Paul says, " Have I not
seen Christ Jesus our Lord 1 " His words are no proof that a man
cannot be an Apostle who has not seen the ascended Lord. They
were directed against the argument of such opponents, that they
must be right because they had seen and heard the Lord. We
forget that the apostolic Epistles were not abstract dogmatic
treatises, but part of a practical work. See also 2 Cor. xi. 22. — Tr.

138 s. paul's third journey.
After Paul had visited Jerusalem and Antioch, and
had wintered in the Cilician Nicopolis (Acts xviii. 22;,
Tit. iii. 12), he undertook his third journey (Acts xviii.
23), during which we see his apostolic labours in full
and glorious development.
What Jerusalem was to Peter, Ephesus became to-
Paul, the place where Christ did by him His mightiest
acts — the manifest outpouring of the Holy Ghost — mani
fold and wonderful healings — and the destruction of
heathenism and its magic arts. (Actsxix. 1, &c.) There,
at one of the chief places of intercourse between East
and West, between Oriental and Grecian religion and
education, was that Church destined to arise, which soon
surpassed Antioch and Corinth. Pro-consular Asia,
i.e. Ephesus, with the circle of Ionian and Phrygian
neighbouring cities, gained in importance for Christen
dom, as Jerusalem lost its central place ; and main
tained an undisputed pre-eminence throughout the time
of John, until the Roman Church appeared as a rival
in the third generation. This metropolis of Asia was
recognized as such in the Apocalypse. The Epistle
to the Ephesians had done so before. In taking
leave of the elders at Miletus (Acts xx. 17), Paul had
received such intelligence as to the growth of the
Ephesian Church in his absence, and the progress of
the Gospel in Asia, as moved him to address his ency
clical Epistle, primarily to the Church in that capital,
and secondarily, to the suburban churches derived from
it, all which together presented themselves to him
as that crown of his work, and that noble edifice in the
midst of Christendom, round which all other Churches
in the wide world should range themselves. It was
given him to entrust as a legacy to these Churches the

S. PAUL AT F.PHESUS. 1 39
greatest truths which he had to declare concerning the
Church of Christ, its increase unto the perfect man in
Him, and its future glory. Yet he must also have had
a presentiment of a different kind, in parting from the
elders of Ephesus, among whom he had laboured three
years. He knew that from that place should proceed
a heresy of a new and dangerous kind, a heathenish
corruption of Christianity, the counterpart of its Pha
risaic perversion at Jerusalem ; that from among those
who had received the sacred pastoral office men should
arise, speaking perverse things, misleading the hearts
of the disciples, and going about as wolves among the
flock of Christ. (Acts xx. 29.) In short, in that parting
address of his, which for its solemnity resembled the
last words of Moses and Samuel, he described, in
prophetic words, the rise of that false pagan gnosis by
which his doctrine should be so fearfully deformed,
and so many Christians should suffer in faith and
morals. His words to the elders of Ephesus are few.
But to Timothy, who was left behind there, he speaks
more at large, both as to the present and as to the
future. Hymenaeus and Philetus (perhaps the same as
Alexander) were his fellow-teachers. They made ship
wreck of faith (1 Tim. i. 20 ; 2 Tim.ii. 17, 18) ; for they
had not kept a pure conscience ; and the snare of secret
or open sin invariably precedes heresy and infidelity.
Their delusion, that the resurrection was past already,
i.e. that a resurrection of the body was not to be ex
pected, they maintained against the Apostle, with an.
obstinacy, which approached to blasphemy and forced
him to deliver them to Satan. As Korah and his com
pany rose against Moses and Aaron and usurped the
priesthood (2 Tim. ii. 19; Numb. xvi. 5, 26), so did

140 BEGINNINGS OF PAGAN HERESY.
these attempt to set up their own heretical office of
teacher against lawful authority ; and Paul foresaw in
the Spirit that their word would eat like a canker (2
Tim. ii. 17), till they should meet an end like that of their
precursors. There were also already present persons
addicted to black arts, comparable to Jannes and
Jambres, men such as Simon the sorcerer, or the later
Gnostic Marcos,* seducers to shameful works, who
haunted the servants of Christ, and crept into Churches
and families. (2 Tim. iii. 6.) Such phenomena on
Christian ground were early and sure evidences of that
apostacy of which Paul informed the Thessalonians.
Its first step was the hypocritical asceticism of a seared
•conscience. (1 Tim. iv. 1.) Not till later did it de
velop itself in that lawless disruption of moral re
straints, the coming universality of which had been
foretold. (2 Tim. iii. 1.) The Apostle furnished
Timothy with the antidote to all these perversions, in
the mystery of godliness, the pillar and ground of the
truth, God manifest in flesh (1 Tim. iii. i6),t i.e. the
incarnation, as the fountain of holiness ; the holy life,
the death, and the resurrection of God's Son, in our
very flesh, as furnishing both our obligation and our
ability to be holy, — that truth of truths, which a seared
conscience chafes at, which unclean spirits cannot con
fess (1 John iv. 3), and the denial of which is the
leading feature of all heretical gnosis.
The wickedness was as yet but partially disclosed.
Paul had to meet, in one of the Churches allied to
* Irenceus adv. haer. i. 13.
t Christ, not the Church, is the truth. But the Church, as filled
with his presence, is its pillar and ground, its right testimony and
basis. — Tr.

ESSENISM AT COL0SSE. 14!
Ephesus, and to point out for the warning of others,
only one present error of no very dangerous character.
In the Epistle to the Colossians, which both date and
contents connect with the encyclical Epistle, he denounces
an amalgamation of Christianity with Essenism. Such
a thing was to be expected ; and had no doubt
occurred in other places beside the Phrygian city on the
Lycos. This error may have been introduced by those
disciples of John, who were akin to the Essenes, and
whom the Apostle found as the first nucleus of the
Ephesian Church. (Acts xix. i) The Epistle to the
Ephesians is itself not without reference to it ; although
Paul judges it much more mildly than the Pharisaism of
the Galatians, because it had not then assumed that
hostile attitude towards the Apostle and his doctrine
which we find some centuries after, in those its forgeries
which pass under the name of Clement of Rome. While
this Essene theosophy supposed a heavenly hierarchy of
emanated spirits between God and man, asserted the
mediation and intercourse of angels, and would intro
duce the worship of them in the Church (Col. ii. 18, 19),
Paul reminded the Colossians that angels have all
been created through the Son, and that He is in His
exaltation the sole head and foundation of the Church,
in whom alone we have forgiveness and perfection.
(Col. i. 16; ii. 10.) Mortification of the body; scrupulosity
as to unclean meats ; keeping of the Sabbath, the new
moon, and other Jewish feasts; nay, submission to
circumcision, were recommended by these mystics.
(Col. ii. 11, 16, 20, 23.) They were blind to the
presence of the substance of these shadows in Christ and
His mystical body. (Col. ii. 17.)
It is with reason that the Epistles to the Ephesians

142 ESSENISM AT C0L0SSE.
and the Colossians illustrate the divine dignity of the
Head along with the heavenly essence and calling of
the Church. (Col. i. 16.) This became especially
necessary in proportion as the Church attained to a
consciousness of her own dignity and privileges. We
see less of it in the former Epistles of Paul — more of it
in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the Epistle to the
Ephesians has never yet been fully realized in the
Church's life. And while we can see that she has
learned great lessons from the Epistles to the Galatians
and to the Romans in past centuries, we cannot say that
the condition described in Paul's Epistle to Ephesus
and Colosse is already gone through and past, in her
development.

We have followed the Apostle down to the year 58,
the climax of his labors. He could then say to the
Romans that he had executed his commission to preach
the Gospel from Jerusalem to the coasts of Adria.
With this agrees the fact, that in this year Titus, who
had been setting in order the Churches in Crete, went,
no doubt by Paul's direction, to Dalmatia. (2 Tim. iv.
9.) Meanwhile, Churches had been planted by other
Apostles in the countries of the South, in Egypt and
Cyrene as well as in Italy. And Paul desired to hasten
by Rome to the distant West, where he might find a
sphere of labor yet occupied by none. (Rom. xv.
20 — 24.) Accompanied by many fellow-laborers, he
paid a farewell visit to the Churches on the coast of
the .rEgean Sea. (Acts xx. 3.) But the prophecies
concerning the things which awaited him in Jerusalem

S. PAUL S PASTORAL LETTERS. I43
{Acts xx. 23; xxi. 11) awakened in him quite different
anticipations, and were fulfilled when he was arrested
at Pentecost, and brought to his long imprisonment at
Csesarea. (Acts xxi. 33 ; xxi. 33.) Let us here then, before
proceeding to the last acts and fate of Paul, look back
at his Churches, to see in what order he left them,
when his labors were so suddenly and sadly interrupted.
Along with the first Epistle to the Corinthians and
that to the Ephesians, the pastoral Epistles must be
our chief source of information. They were his legacy
to the rulers of the Church ; the sum of all those wise
regulations according to which the House of Christ
should be guided in the absence of Apostles ; and at
the same time his testimony against the unfaithfulness
of the stewards, and the decay of the Church, in after
ages. Paul charged his son Timothy, by the day of
judgement, to keep these holy commandments unblam
able till the appearing of Jesus Christ. (1 Tim. v. 21 ;
vi. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 1 .) But what Christian community
can say that it has done so ? And yet shall all rulers
of the Church be judged by this document. And no
one can escape this judgement by pleading that the
pastoral Epistles are not genuine.
Titus had been sent as delegate of the Apostle to
Crete, and Timothy had been left at Ephesus, when
they received these written directions, in which Paul
gave at once a recapitulation of his oral instruction, and
a certificate of their mission to the Churches. The
Apostle seems to have made an excursion from Corinth
to Crete, on his second journey, at the end of which the
Epistle to Titus was written. (Acts xviii. 22 ; comparing
Titus iii. 13.) The first epistle to Timothy falls within
the third journey. Paul may have interrupted his three

I44 s> PAUL'S PASTORAL LETTERS.
years' residence in Asia by a journey to Macedonia, not
reported by Luke, but pointed at in the second Epistle
to the Corinthians, (2 Cor. xiii i.) Lastly, the second
Epistle to Timothy was written from Caesarea, a few
months after the farewell journey, to which its beginning
and end have a clear retrospect. (2 Tim. i. 4; comp.
Acts xx. 37 ; 2 Tim. iv. 13 ; comp. Acts xx. 13 ; 2 Tim.
iv. 20; comp. Acts xx. 15.) It is a misunderstanding
of certain passages which has led some to refer this
Episde to Paul's Roman captivity. (2 Tim. i. 17; iv.
16, &c.)
It is a strange idea entertained by some, that,
although elsewhere we see the beginnings of a fixed
ecclesiastical polity, there was none in the Churches
under Paul — that every one had a right to teach —
that spiritual equality was the fundamental law — that
there was no office divinely originated and authorized,
no sure tradition of facts and doctrines, no obligation to
obedience, no law for discipline and rule, no uniformity
in rites, but an indeterminate latitude and fluidity in all
relations, which has been pictured as the beau ideal of
the Church's state, but with which no community in the
world could subsist for a week. Those only could fail
into such mistakes who regard the teaching of Paul as
to faith and Christian liberty as an emancipation from
God's eternal laws and man's holy obligation. Neither
in doctrine nor in practice does the Apostle show a
trace of Antinomianism. And it is plain from his
Epistles that there is not a vestige of truth in all the
phantastic pictures of a golden age of ecclesiastical
anarchy. Paul repeated in his Epistles few of those arrange
ments which he was wont to make in planting Churches,

S. PAULS CHURCHES WELL ORDERED. I45
because the Epistles were written to Churches already
ordered. He referred to the traditions and determi
nations which they had received from him. He required
their exact observance. He promised to the Corin
thians, when he should come again, yet fuller provisions
as to worship and discipline, which in the interim had
become needful, (i Cor. xi. 34.) He compared the
character of a Church, as it should be, to that of a
marshalled army. (Col ii. 5 ; Phil. i. 27.) And he
urged upon the Corinthians, who had transgressed
wholesome laws in the exercise of spiritual gifts, a
principle to be observed in all Churches and cases, that
God is not a God of disorder, but of peace. ( 1 Cor.
xiv. 33.) In that very matter, which to a superficial
reader of Paul's writings would most suggest the idea
of primitive anarchy in the Church, viz., the use of
spiritual gifts, Paul insisted on the strictest and wisest
order. (1 Cor. xiv. 1, &c.) He allowed, yea, he
encouraged all to prophesy. But he nowhere allowed
all to teach. Prophesying and teaching, or preaching,
are distinct, although a thousand times confounded by
the ignorance of later times. In prophecy the Holy
Ghost speaks through man. In teaching, man speaks
by the aid of the Holy Ghost. Teaching is entirely
prohibited to women — prophecy is allowed. The
command that they shall be silent in the Church (1 Cor.
xiv. 34, 35 : 1 Tim. ii. 12) went to meet their
ambition to teach.* But their liberty to prophecy was
recognized in the very condition imposed upon them
that their head in prophesying should be covered ( 1 Cor.
xi. 5), a provision evidently applicable, not to the
domestic circle, but to the public assembly. Speaking
* Often under pretext of asking instruction. — Tr.

I46 SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND MINISTRIES.
in the unknown tongues with accompanying interpreta
tion — prophecies full of comfort and exhortation, — songs
inspired of the Holy Chost, were heard during the
worship and the feasts of love. ( 1 Cor. xiv. 26 ; Eph.
v. 18, 20.) But the action of him who conducted the
worship and officially instructed the Church was totally
distinct from all these expressions of spiritual gifts.
There were elders present, ordained and appointed by
Apostles, who had officially to labor in word and
doctrine. ( I.Tim, v. 17.) And to them did it belong
to enforce the observance of these rules as to worship.
When Paul said, " There are diversities of gifts, but
one Spirit ; there are differences of administration, but
one Lord " (1 Cor. xii. 4), he placed, side by side with
the gifts in which the Holy Ghost manifests Himself, and
yet quite distinct from them, those offices by which
Christ, the Head of the body, guides the Church. In
the former we see that life acting which pervades every
member, in the latter that authority with which certain
members are invested for the good of the rest. Without
the latter the body would be inorganic — without the
former dead organism. If ever there was a man who
stood for the organic order of the whole, against all
atomic-democratic ideas of the Church, that man was
Paul. (1 Cor. xii. 12 — 30; Eph. ii. 21 ; iv. 4 — 16;
Rom. xii. 4.) It is an almost unparalleled mistake to
use his name in support of such a theory, which is alike
baseless regarding the origin of the Church, as regard
ing that of the State.
Paul's Epistles recapitulate so little of his rules for
worship that much in this department is hid from our
view. The Lord's day was kept (Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor.
xvi. 2), and no doubt had for its chief solemnity the

THE LORDS DAY. 147
Lord's Supper. This was not merely a divine ministry
of blessing, but the highest act of worship. Else it
could never have been compared with the Jewish and
heathen sacrificial rites. It was that reality of which
the Jews had the shadow and the heathen the mockery.
{1 Cor. x. 15 — 22.) The exact relation of the Eucha
rist to the Agape cannot, even with the help of the
directions in i Cor. xi., be exactly determined. We
can only conjecture by the aid of later authorities that
the act of worship took place in the morning, and the
love-feast, distinct from it, in the evening. (Pliny, Ep.
x. 97.) The Corinthians rendered themselves unfit to
celebrate the former, by their offences against charity
and temperance at the latter.
There was no command to keep the Sabbath as well
as the Lord's day. Nay, the Apostle contended to the
utmost against making its observance a condition of
salvation. Yet he was evidently willing to allow its
observance to the Jewish Christians as a concession to
their weakness. And he required that they should be
borne with by the Grecian portion of the Church, even
in observing the law as to meats and in other forms of
abstinence, provided they did not burden or perplex
others. Many of those who brought the gloomy severity
of strict Judaism with them into the Church were so
scrupulously ascetic, that they abstained from meat and
wine, altogether, or on fixed days. (Rom. xiv. i — 21.)
They made a conscience of doing so, because they
were accustomed to regard every such indulgence as
weakening the power of the spirit over the flesh, and
hoped thus to keep down the old man. It was a veryf
intelligible feeling, which we do not need to ascribe
to any gnosticism, uncleanness of conscience, or hypo-
l 2

I48 ASCETIC LIFE.
crisy, and which widely differed from that mortification
which springs from "doctrines of devils." (i.Tim. iv. 1.)
Orthodox Judaism had such penitents, e.g. Banus,
whom Flavius Josephus visited in the wilderness, and
John the Baptist with his disciples. Judaeo-Christian
legends have represented James, Peter, and Matthew,
as given to this way of life, in which lay the buddings
of ecclesiastical asceticism. Paul warns the ascetic not
to judge the free. But he also forbids the latter to
despise the former. (Rom. xiv. 10.)
Paul nowhere states whether he allowed Jewish
Christians to let their children be circumcised as well
as baptised. Yet we may assume that he did not for
bid that which he himself did in the case of Timothy.
He joined in the Jewish celebration of Easter and Pen
tecost at Jerusalem. And yet we cannot doubt that,
whether he actually appointed the corresponding feasts
in the Church or not, the feasts which he thus observed
had for him a new and Christian import.
Prayer and thanksgiving for all men were a principal
part of Christian worship, and were made especially for
kings and all in authority. (1 Tim. ii. 1.) The faith
of one God, who willeth that all should be saved, and
of one Mediator, who, being true man, belongs to all,
and is alike nigh to all, led to this. In order to under
stand the importance of this obligation on the Church
we must reflect on those zealots m Jerusalem, who
would not suffer the presentation of the offerings sent
by the heathen to the temple. (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii.
J° [i7]0
* The reading aloud of the Old Testament continued
to be a prominent part of worship. Paul declared the
whole Scriptures of the old covenant to be inspired of

S. LUKE S GOSPEL. I4g
God (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17), full of spiritual meaning and
life, and all adapted to the instruction of the Christian
Church. In addition to this, his own Epistles were
read to the assembled Church ; and, without doubt,
the words and deeds of Christ served as a text to many
a teaching. Parts of the Gospel narrative were com
municated orally to the flock, probably in writing to
the teachers. On two points Paul felt himself obliged
to repeat the historical communications, which he had
by word of mouth delivered to the Corinthians, viz. the
first institution of the Lord's Supper, and the appear
ances of the risen Christ. (1 Cor. xi. 23 ; xv. 3.) These
passages, two fragments of his oral traditions, give us a
high idea of the exactness and completeness with which
the historical Gospel was intrusted to the Church, in
addition to the many other proofs of the same. Much
more in Paul's Epistles than is generally supposed rests
upon sayings of the Lord ; the whole of his doctrine
and morals, and all his more important regulations.
Some things which are not in our synoptic Gospels, and
many things which are in that of John alone, must have
been known to Paul and his disciples as the word of
Christ. The subject demands and would well repay a
special investigation. Luke, who wrote his Gospel at
Csesarea, a. d. 58 — 60, no doubt used (in addition to
the unauthentic private writings of unknown pre
decessors, to the Gospel of Mark, and to the rich
recollections still lively in Palestine) the oral relations
of Paul, and also written documents, such as those
which the Apostle sent for from Troas to Csesarea.
(2 Tim. iv. 13.) Yet his Gospel does not contain every
thing indiscriminately which was known to the circle of
Paul's disciples. He nowhere promises to relate all

150 CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
— not even all that he remembered — but only that
which had been imparted to Theophilus in oral instruc
tion. (Luke i. 4.) On one hand his Gospel is more
complete than the traditions in the Churches under
Paul ; for he filled them up from sources in Palestine.
But on the other it does not come near the measure of
knowledge exhibited in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
with which no Gospel, but that of John, can be compared
for depth.
Paul knew but one Church ; the Church of God,.
into which we are brought by baptism (Rom. vi. 3),
having thereby put on Christ (Gal. iii. 27,) being dead
with Him, risen with Him to a new life, and called to
holiness. (Rom. vi. 3.) He knew it to be his office,
not only to gather and build up the faithful, but to per
fect them in one body. (Eph. iv. 13 ; 2 Cor. xi. 2 ;
Rom. xv. 16.) But this call to perfection implied a
corresponding discipline, to purify and protect. Paul
exercised this in such a way, that its practical operation
corresponded, both with the two degrees of the Jewish
excommunication, and with the directions of Christ, —
admonition of him who walked disorderly, then with
drawal from him, yet withal a treatment of the erring
person as a brother, not as an enemy. (2 Thess. iii. 6,
14, 15.) The heretic, i.e. the obstinate teacher of error,
once and again rebuked, was to be avoided. (Tit. iii.
10.) Thus far went the first step of the Jewish ban
(niddui). The last and most severe measure held over
the blasphemer and seducer was the anathema — cor
responding to the Jewish Cherem or Schammatha —
the delivering into the power of Satan. (1 Cor. v. 4, 5 ;
1 Tim. i. 20,) Yet even this was not unto eternal per
dition, but, if possible, to the saving of the soul; and

DEACONS AND ELDERS. 151
was performed in the firm persuasion that, without
human intervention, divine chastisements could, be
yond the pale of the Church, find out and speak
savingly to him who would not hear God's voice in His
Church. We find in Paul's Churches deacons and elders,
exactly as in Jerusalem. The deacon's office was a
stepping-stone to that of the elder or bishop, yet quite
distinct from it. (i Tim. iii. 8 ; Phil. i. i.) The nature
of the case led to this ; and Clement of Rome expressly
states, that the Apostles set the first fruits of their
ministry as deacons and bishops in every new place.
(Clem. Rom. i ad Cor. 42.) The widows who were
maintained by the Church ( 1 Tim. v. 3) were distinct
from the deaconesses. (1 Tim. iii. 11 ; Rom. xvi. 1.)
The same men who were called elders in reference to
their dignity, were called bishops in reference to their
superintendence. (Acts xx. 17, 28; Phil. i. i; 1 Tim.
iii. 2.) All of them should be apt to teach. ( 1 Tim. iii. 2 ;
Tit. i. 9.) It is a pure mistake to think that some of the
elders were excluded from the ministry of the word.
We nowhere read that they were created by choice of
the people, either unanimously or through a majority.
They were appointed by the call of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts xx. 28.) And they received consecration, mission,
and power, by ordination of an Apostle or his delegate.
(2 Tim. i. 6; Tit. i. 5 ; 1 Tim. v. 22.) On the other
hand, at their institution, the congregation had a voice :
for the flock should certainly bear witness to the moral
qualities of those who are to be set over them, who
ought to have a good report even from them who
are without, (1 Tim, iii. 7.)
It is very singular that there is no trace in the Acts,

IS "2 DELEGATES.
or in Paul's Epistles, of the episcopate, in that form
which it had already assumed in the case of James at
Jerusalem, and in which it afterwards appeared in the
Seven Churches of John. This can be nothing acci
dental. Had there really been in Corinth or Ephesus
a head shepherd permanently intrusted with the care
of the whole ministers and people, the fact must have
been noticed, even accidentally. The Apostle to the
heathen appears to have delayed for a pretty long
period to call into exercise the episcopal order — the
highest of the three. And yet we see even here tokens
of its rise, since Paul conveyed to Titus and Timothy
even more than mere episcopal functions. We call
them Apostolic delegates, because they were not
bound to any one Church like a bishop proper, and be
cause their powers were greater than those of a bishop,
and more nearly approaching to those of an Apostle.
They received from the Apostle a special mission, and
returned to him from it. He gave them instructions,
but with the consciousness that he himself must yet
come and take up their work, (i Tim. iii. 14, 15; iv.
13.) He instructs his delegates to commit the truth to
faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also,
(2 Tim. ii. 2.) and in so far to invest these men with
authority. But these men were not yet bishops, each
of them the head of a College of Presbyters. The
mission of Paul's delegates was provisional ; and from
the Epistles to them one cannot make out, whether a
transfer of their functions into the hands of a permanent
episcopate or a resumption of those functions by Paul,
or men like Paul, was the thing to be expected. The
ecclesiastic organisation as it stood in these Epistles, was
not fully brought out or determined in its character.

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. I53
Paul regarded the Church, including those gathered
by the first Apostolate, as a unity in Christ. (Eph. iv. 4 ;
Gal. iii. 28.) It was easy for the heathen Christians to
recognize the Churches which stood under Peter. But
the reverse was more difficult. Therefore Paul labored
throughout to make the Jewish Christians conscious of
their unity with the others, by proofs of love on the
part of the latter. Yet he did not fully succeed in this.
The unity, originally and essentially in Christ and from
Him proceeding, was established among the Apostles,
as is seen by their giving and accepting the hand of
brotherhood ; and ought to have embraced the whole
else disconnected points in the periphery of the Church,
without obliterating national and social distinctions.
Paul recognized that organic action and combination,
(as of each section, so of the whole body of Christ,)
without which no true growth and perfection were to
be looked for; — Christ the corner-stone; — then the
foundation, Apostles and Prophets (Eph. ii. 20), not
dead men, not books, but living acting men, the most
indispensable part of the whole organism ; next to them,
Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers (Eph. iv. 11), such
as appear in the Acts along with Prophets ; — and all
these appointed to the work of the ministry, i.e. to the
exercise of that office, one in its root and essence, but
divided in its functions, by which alone the Church
could be perfected. This end, as set forth in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul did not see attained.
But he saw the Churches on the right way to it. In
spite of the perilous conflicts which he had already
experienced, he had succeeded, as a wise master builder,
in laying the foundation (1 Cor. iii. 10), and bringing
forth, in the wilderness of degraded heathenism, the

154 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.
wonderful phenomena of Christian order and fruitful-
ness. The sanctity of Christian marriage as a symbol
of the highest and purest love, the education of children
with the gravity and kindness of Christ, the mitigation
of slavery, the law of charity to the poor, the reverence
of superiors, the conscientious, not constrained, obedience
to authority and law, — (Eph. v. 21 ; vi.9; Col. iii. 18;
iv. 1,) such are the features of the manner of life, not
"only required but effected by Paul ; effected, not by
random preaching and efforts without a plan, but by
the co-operation of every instrument in that organic and
divine machinery, which is nowhere to be found save in
the bosom of the Church.

Returning now from this digression as to the results
of Paul's labors, and following him to Jerusalem and
Rome, we find him in very altered circumstances,
holding intercourse with Jews and with Churches not
planted by him, but under the jurisdiction of James and
Peter. Luke informs us how he acted in Jerusalem.
(Acts xxi. 15.) But we have yet another expression of
Paul's mind on this occasion in his Epistle to the
Romans, the historical import of which we must now
consider. The death of Claudius, a.d. 54, cut short the opera
tion of that edict by which the Jews were banished
from Rome. Thereupon followed the five first years
of Nero, a season of relief for the empire, worn out by
the crimes of his three predecessors. The Jews re
turned unhindered to the capital, and the scattered
Church was gathered again. It bore the same strictly

S. PAUL AND THE CHURCH OF ROME. 155
Israelite character as before, and gave evidence of its
being planted and still guided by Peter ; although he
was not present in Rome, either in 58, when Paul wrote
to the Romans, or in 61, when Paul came to Rome.
Meanwhile, however, a minority of heathens, whom
Paul once, by way of exception, addresses in his Epistle
(Rom. xi. 13), had been joined to the Church ; and not
a few of Paul's friends had gone thither from the East,
such as Aquila, who quite shared his views. (Rom. xvi.
3.) The transference of the latter persons to Rome
must have been agreeable to him, as a means of approxi
mation, agreement, and amalgamation, for both ele
ments of the congregation. He availed himself of this
bond of connection, by greeting all personally known to
him, at the end of his Epistle. Its beginning and con
clusion show plainly that he had before him a Church,
which was not, like that at Corinth, his work, or even
that of his disciples, but owed its existence and alle
giance to another of equal authority with himself. His
rule, not to build on another's foundation, determined
him to do no more than visit Rome on his way and to be
conducted thence to Spain. (Rom. xv. 23, 24.) For
many years he had had his eye upon Rome, to preach
there. But ere he could reach it, the faith of the Chris
tians there was already published throughout the world ;
and he went there expecting to be comforted and en
couraged by their faith. (Rom. i. 8 — 13.) In a word, he
acted as one ought to do in another's diocese. Yet he
did not conceal that he could impart to them spiritual
blessings which they did not yet possess. He acknow
ledged the truth of their foundation. But they had not
yet received that which was peculiarly committed to
him. They did not withstand him. But they had not

I56 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
yet fully recognized his Apostleship ; for they were not
yet instructed in his doctrine. They regarded both
his teaching and his operation with prejudices similar
to those felt at Jerusalem. The object next his heart
was an apology for both. (Rom. i-viii.; ix.-xi.) And,
as they had no authentic oral information on the subject,
his written exposition of both assumed a systematic com
pleteness not to be found elsewhere. He did indeed
treat of. the same subjects in writing to the Galatians.
But, as these were his own children, he did so with a
brevity which, had we not the aid of the Epistle to the
Romans, would present almost insurmountable diffi
culties. And the two Epistles differed in another
important respect. In the one case he had to meet false
teachers with an anathema. (Gal. i. 8.) In the other
he had to deal merely with partial ignorance. The one
Church had departed from the truth; the other had
not learned it. The one rose against his authority ; the
other had not yet acknowledged it. We see throughout
all his Epistles how differently he acted towards the
wolves, and towards the feeble sheep. He warned
the Romans against those who caused division and
offence, serving, professedly Christ, but really their own
belly (Rom. xvi. 17 — 20), as he had described them in
addressing the Philippians and Galatians. But he
treated the Roman Church as distinct from such men,
as simple adherents of the Apostles to Israel. Peter
himself was of a very different mind from those
Pharisaic emissaries to whom Paul alluded, and who
had abused the name of Peter.
Paul therefore sought, not to correct any error, but to
enlarge the heart and understanding of the Romans,
and so deliver them from that anxious jealousy which

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 157
their attachment to Moses engendered. (Rom.i. — viii.)
He showed, first, that Israel was as much condemned
by the law as the heathen are, and could, like them,
attain to true righteousness only through faith in Christ
(Rom. i. 17; iii. 30) ; nay, that Abraham, in whom the
Israelite boasted, had been justified by faith while he
was yet a heathen, and that the Gospel brings us into
the true relation of children to God (Rom. iv. 1 — 11);
that as through one man's fall sin and death had come
upon all, so by one man had righteousness and life come
for all ; which provision removed the distinction between
the people under the law and others, and reduced the
law itself to a mere episode in the divine government
of mankind (Rom. v. 12 — 21) ; that the fruit of his
doctrine was not lawlessness, as the slanderers said, but
new life, in union with the risen Christ (Rom. vi. I- — 7)';
that, although the law was holy, it could produce in man
only the knowledge of sin, not life (Rom. vii. 7 — 25 ) ;
that the true demands of the law can be fulfilled only
under the kingdom of grace, by walking in the Spirit ;
and that, with our adoption, we have comfort in suffering,
and the hope of glory. (Rom. viii.) Nor was the second
part of the Epistle (ix — xi) less directly applicable to
the feelings of the faithful from among Israel. Rejoice
as they might over the fruits of the Gospel among the
heathen, they still grudged against the reflex operation
of the conversion of heathen upon Israel. Their great
desire was for the illumination of Jews. But every step
of progress among the heathen increased the estrange
ment of the Jews from the cause of Christ, and the
improbability of their conversion. Every act of Paul
appeared to justify the old accusation against Christ
and Stephen, and to bring the Gospel into collision

I58 THE EPISTLE TO THB ROMANS.
with the law and the hope of the fathers. They asked :
Ought Messiah to be so preached as to offend His
people ? Ought the heathen to be converted at the
expense of the most sacred feelings of Israel ? Ought
Israel to be repelled, and perhaps sacrificed for ever,
to accelerate the salvation of the nations ? Paul found
it no light matter to meet those objections, in them
selves so natural and worthy of regard. He com
menced by avowing his sorrow for his brethren after
the flesh. (Rom. ix. 1.) He would be accursed from
Christ for their sakes. Yet the event before his eyes —
that sad schism by which a small fraction of Israel
inherited, and the majority forfeited, the promise, was
only the fulfilment of a divine purpose, and already
pourtrayed in Old Testament types. In Abraham's
house, Isaac first, and then Jacob, was the only heir,
to the exclusion of Ishmael and of Esau. Who could
charge God with injustice in this? Moreover, God
shows, as He did towards Pharaoh and the Egyptians,
the richness of his long-suffering over those who are
already, through their own sin, ripe for judgment.
The Saviour had become a stone of stumbling for Israel,
only because Israel would not acknowledge righteousness
by faith, and sought to bring down the Redeemer from
heaven by the works of the law, as if He were not
already come. But He is present as a deliverer for all
who should call upon Him ; and, therefore, must His
messengers be sent to all. The Apostle added the con
soling words : God hath not cast off His people (Rom.
xi. 1 ) ; and there is a holy remnant. But he said more,
for the warning of the heathen against pride, for the
soothing of the Jew in his distress. He prophesied the
fall of the Gentiles and the restoration of the Jews. The

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 1 59
former, grafted into the true olive, should, if they
exalted themselves, be cut off. As soon as the pre
determined fulness of the Gentile elect should have
come in, and have passed into the glory of the kingdom,
all Israel should be saved ; the ancient prophecies as to
Israel should be literally fulfilled ; a mystery this, which
certainly rested on words of Christ, yet had not then
been introduced into the public teaching of the Church.
The concluding part of the Epistle (xii — xv) presents
a question of historical interest ; namely, why is it here
insisted on that the powers that be are ordained of
God, and are God's ministers ? The answer is, because
the Church, being predominantly Israelite, was in great
danger of viewing the Roman authority as it had been
viewed in Judea, and of being thus led into sedition.
The whole Judaism of the time was penetrated by the
idea, that it was not befitting the holy people to bow
before a heathen sceptre, or any power but that of
Jehovah and His Anointed. By this had Judas, the
Gaulonite, raised the rebellion in Palestine at the taking
of the first tribute. In like manner many thought
that Israel was bound . to effect its independence
by a holy war like that waged by the Maccabees.
This was the state of feeling which ultimately brought
destruction on the holy city. And herein lay the sub
tlety of the question which the Pharisees and the
Herodians addressed to Christ; whether one should
pay tribute or not ? If He said, Yes ; He warranted
the accusation of some that He was a betrayer of His
nation. If He said, No ; others stood ready to bring
Him to punishment as a mover of sedition. The
Roman authorities were well aware of this state of
mind, and were on their guard. And therefore it was

160 s. paul's last visit to Jerusalem.
of the utmost importance to purify the Jewish Chris
tians from this leaven, that they might escape the sus
picion attached to the other Jews. They needed to
learn to regard the Roman Government, not as a god
less, dark, inimical power, but as an instrument of
God's government deserving their veneration. The
words of Paul : " He that resisteth receiveth to himself
damnation," were, in fact, a prophecy of the issue of
the Jewish war. And nothing but the true doctrine as
to the powers that be, could preserve the Church in
the Roman capital from a fate similar to that of Jeru
salem.* While Paul discloses to us, in this Epistle, his own
mind regarding the Jewish Christians, the conclusion
of the Acts shows us his external conduct towards
them. The narrative of Luke needs no confirmation
from without. In the judgment of the most competent,
no other ancient account gives so true and living a
picture of life in the provinces (Acts xxi — xxvi) ; and
no description of a sea-voyage in ancient or modern
times, excels his in exactness and historical truth.
(Acts xxvii., &c.)f
The elders of the Church at Jerusalem assembled
with their bishop, to hear from the mouths of the
strangers, Paul and Luke, what God had wrought by
them. (Acts xxi. 18.) Formerly James had been the
only one of the Jerusalem clergy who completely re
cognized Paul. Now his elders appear to have also
* One cannot but observe here, how the ordinary superficial view
of the Epistle to the Romans as primarily a sermon to the heathen,
robs it of all historical import, true application, and internal
consistency. — Tr.
t See, James Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1856.

S. PAUL OBSERVING THE LAW OF MOSES, l6i
come on so far. They praised God for what they had
heard. But they did not conceal from Paul their ap
prehension of a dangerous dispute with the myriads of
Jewish Christians, who were still zealous for the law.
It is not wonderful that Paul did his utmost to avoid
the conflict. He went into the court of the temple with
four men who were fulfilling their vows as Nazarites,
and caused the priest to make the required offerings
for all. In this he did no more than he had represented
to the Corinthians as a duty in such circumstances.
( I Cor. ix. 19 — 23.) He became, to them that are under
the law, as under the law, to save some of them, and
was guilty of no departure from his principle, that they
who held by the works of the law were under the curse,
inasmuch as he in no way sought to justify himself by
the law, or returned to it, forsaking the Gospel, but
merely performed an act of love to the brethren, and of
reverence to the customs of those among whom, and
to the authority under which, he was for the time.
The same outward act may, in one set of circumstances
and from one motive, be blameable, which, in others, is
praiseworthy. The real difficulty of what took place
at Jerusalem does not lie here, but in another point.
The elders desired that Paul should thus give proof
of his keeping the law, and answer the accusation of
having taught the Jews, scattered among the heathen,
that they should not circumcise their children, or keep
the customs of the fathers. (Acts xxi. 24.) But how
could he contradict this charge, seeing that it was at
least half true ? The elders at Jerusalem held to the
principle that, although the heathen convert was not
bound to the law, the Jewish was. (Acts xxi. 25.)
Paul, on the contrary, although a man of Israel, had
M

1 62 . S. PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN.
taken on himself, occasionally, to walk among those
without law, as if he himself were without law. And
he undoubtedly brought it mediately to pass, that the
Jewish converts regarded as a thing indifferent, and
ultimately let drop, the observance of the law in their
families. This could not be unknown to the elders;
and Paul could not conceal it. They required him to
commence action on ' their principles by appearing as
an offerer in the sanctuary. We do not know what
Paul answered to these well intended proposals, whether
he declared that he felt no longer bound by the law, and
expected the time when the Jewish customs should dis
appear from the Church, or whether he kept silence.
But we may be sure of this, that he did not bind him
self with chains, and sacrifice his autonomous apostolic
action by any promise for all futurity. He did not
need to do so, in order to follow their advice. And, in
following it, he preserved intact his liberty of action in
his own proper sphere, while he accommodated himself,
as in duty bound, to the counsel of the bishop in a sphere
that was not his.
The day after his arrest, on the occasion of which
nothing but the greatest energy on the part of the
Roman commander saved him from the rage of the
unbelieving Jews, Paul stood before the Sanhedrin in
a once more very difficult position. (Acts xxii. 30.)
He found the Sadducees, that apostate party, who had
no right to sit in judgment in Israel, and were the
bitterest enemies of the cause of Christ, these he found
in possession of the supreme power and the high priest
hood ; while the Pharisees, who maintained the truth,
on every subject but politics, against Sadduceism, and
who, since Gamaliel's counsel, had been much milder

S. PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN. 1 63
towards Christianity, were the oppressed party. He
was tempted to rebuke the Sadducean high priest, who
had caused him to be unlawfully beaten, because he
could not recognize his conduct as that of a high priest.
(Acts xxiii. 5.) He also perceived how, without his
intervention, the discussion of his case had turned into
a contest on the great question between the Sadducees
and the orthodox. It was no profane artifice of war
which led Paul to take the side of the orthodox, and
make common cause with them. (Acts xxiii. 6.) He
sought not his own advantage merely, but the vindica
tion of Christianity, in declaring its accordance with
Jewish orthodoxy, and endeavouring to strengthen the
latter. For Christianity and Judaism were as truly
allied against Sadduceism, as they are against modern
naturalism. The resurrection is the fundamental truth
of all supernatural doctrine. With it all other facts
belonging to a higher world stand or fall. Its reality
is the refutation of naturalism, in every form, ancient
or modern.
Paul was helped out of his danger by a remarkable
combination of circumstances and turn of opinion
(Acts xxiii. 9), — one of those providences on his behalf,
of which we can trace the series through his whole
journey from Jerusalem to Rome, and to which both
his biographer in the Acts, and he himself, when before
Agrippa, especially adverted. (Acts xxvi. 22.) It was
so ordered, that Paul should give, before the people,
the Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, and Agrippa II. (the last
king of the house of Herod), and lastly, before the
heads of the Roman synagogue, the noblest testimony
for the truth, fulfilling the words of Christ, " They shall
M 2

164 S. PAUL A PRISONER AT OESAREA.
bring you before princes and kings for my sake, for a
testimony unto them and the nations."
For two years the life of Paul was at the mercy of
the Governor, Antonius Felix (Acts xxiii. 33; xxiv.
27), the man of low origin, who, in the words of
Tacitus (Tac. Hist. v. 9), " exercised royal power like
a slave, in the most cruel and arbitrary manner," and
who delayed to give him up to the Jews, only because
he expected more money from the Christians for his
release, than from the Jews for his death. For a mo
ment the fearless witness for righteousness touched the
conscience of this murderer and adulterer. But wick
edness resumed its sway, and the sword hung constantly
over the head of Paul. (Acts xxiv. 24 — 26.) His
alternate hopes and fears, while for two years in the
fangs of this tyrant, appear from the contradictory
expressions in his Epistles, out of his imprisonment.
(Phil. i. 25 ; Philem. 22 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6.) The second
Epistle to Timothy, written under the expectation of
death in the summer or harvest of 58, gives us a deep
insight into the state of feeling at the time. Paul's
arrest, likely to end fatally, was a dreadful blow to all
his friends. (2. Tim. i. 8.) At his first answer before
the Governor, no Christian stood by him. (2 Tim. iv.
16.) But the panic was not confined to the Christians
of Judsea. The trial was great to his fellow-labourers.
Demas forsook him, to be well in the world. All in
Asia turned away from him, shaken apparently in their
faith by the apprehension lest God was no longer
approving and sanctioning His work, — one which in its
most prosperous form, was hard to believe in.* Luke
* We can hardly over-estimate the trouble of mind which the
Jewish Christians must have had, in proportion to their sincerity

HIS LETTERS FROM CESAREA. 1 65
alone was with him. (2 Tim. iv. 10.) And he sent to
Ephesus for Timothy, his son in the faith (the only
fellow-worker whom he excepted, in saying that all
sought their own and not the things of Jesus Christ)
(Phil. ii. 19 — 22), in order to convey to him his last
will before his departure. Every thing contributed to
aggravate those mental sufferings which he must have
felt, when brought into bondage, inactivity, and uncer
tainty, after such glorious success as in Ephesus, and
in the midst of a world and a Church so much in need
of apostolic ministry. Such an impediment to his
labors must have had a connection with the internal
condition of the Church. And we do not go too far in
supposing, that a want of thankfulness for the blessings
brought through Paul was one cause for this binding of
the Apostleship to the heathen in his person.*
During this period of dark providence, Paul sent
forth, from his solitary confinement, his Epistles, full of
light and comfort, to the distant Churches. Shortly
before the second to Timothy, he despatched those to
the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon, by
and devoutness, from the torturing doubt which haunted them, lest,
after all Paul's Gentile apostleship was a lie, and he himself a
daring intruder into the sacred office of the twelve. It was no light
demand upon the faith, either of the twelve or of their followers, to
acknowledge him. They perilled all, if their doing so was a
delusion. But God thus illustrated the more the faith He gave
them.— TR.
* As the Gentile Churches certainly had a larger measure of
revelation and development than the Jewish, it is not unreasonable
to suppose that the common sin of the whole body in not going on
to perfection under Apostles, was most prominently judged where
it was most prominently seen. We doubt not that, although in a less
patent manner, apostleship was equally bound in the other Apostles,
exhibiting the Lord as a mighty man who could not save.— Tr.

1 66 S. PAUL AT ROME.
Tychicus. (Comp. Eph. vi. 21, and Col. iv. 7, with 2
Tim. iv. 12, not contrad. by Col. i. 1.) Crescens, who
went to Galatia (2 Tim. iv. 9), probably carried with
him that to the Galatians. At a later period, when
there was a hope of release, he sent that to the Philip-
pians, probably not from Rome, but still from Caesarea.
These two years were also employed by Luke in writing
his Gospel, and gathering materials for the Acts, pro
bably by the help of the books and parchments, which
Paul sent for, after having left them behind at Troas
on his farewell journey. Luke, after his experience at
the side of Paul in Macedonia, and then in Judaea, had
motive enough for doing something towards a recon-
cfliation of the two halves of Christendom. He was
himself of Greek extraction in Antioch (Euseb. Hist..
Eccl. iii. 4), and no doubt one in sentiment with Paul.
He had witnessed the true piety and also the preju
dices of the Christians in Judaea. He saw the weighty
grounds of their scruples. This moved him to media
tion. His writings contain a statement of truth well
fitted to obviate mutual prejudice.

Paul had appealed to Caesar. Roman law defeated
the efforts of his adversaries. He was sent to the
Emperor. When, after the perils of the deep and a
winter in Melita, he landed in Italy, in the spring of
61, and was met at the Three Taverns by the Christians
of Rome, he thanked God, and took courage (Acts
(xxviii. 15); recognizing the fulfilment of our Lord's
promise to him after those days of terror in Jerusalem,
" as thou hast testified for me in Jerusalem, so shalt thou.

S. PAUL AT ROME. 167
witness at Rome also." (Acts xxiii. n.) His longing
was for the salvation of the heathen multitudes in the
capital of the world. But he could not labour for this
without first performing a duty to the Jews. He in
vited to him the chief amongst them, not the scribes
merely; and his frankness and confidence were re
warded. Their answer was a strange one (Actsxxviii.
21, 22); as if nothing that had happened had taken
place ; no Christian Church in Rome ; no expulsion of
the Jews because of the preaching of Christianity. But
the historian reports it as a strange one. In the pro
vidence of God, no inimical reports from Palestine, as
to his arrival, had, during the storms of winter, reached
Rome. His behaviour, so different from what they had
expected, surprised and gained them . He had forgotten
and forgiven ; and so had they. Yet they gave him to
understand that, although they had heard nothing
against his person, they knew enough of his sect, of
which, in order to justify their own position towards the
Roman Christians, they said, that it was spoken against,
not only there, but everywhere. They conceded no
more than to suspend their judgment, and appoint a
day for hearing him. But that day was not past, ere
their hostility broke forth, and elicited his solemn
announcement, " The salvation of God is sent unto the
heathen — they will hear it." (Acts xxviii. 28.)
This pregnant word, the last which Luke reports out
of the mouth of Paul, was soon largely fulfilled. The
time was come for the strengthening of Paul's work
among the heathen by Peter. And how great the
results of the preaching, by these two princes of the
Apostles, in the capital of the heathen world, were, may
be inferred from the counterwork of the enemy in the

l68 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW.
persecution under Nero. The hour of grace for Israel
had run out. A fresh persecution of the Christians in
Judaea filled up its measure of guilt. Christ's pro
phecies against Jerusalem were accomplished. The
temple, and with it, the wall of partition, sank. And
the Gospel mightily sped its way throughout the world.
Here we lose the sure guidance of the Acts, and
learn many important facts only from the fragmentary
and partly fabulous testimonies of later days. Yet we
are not entirely deserted by the New Testament. From
the canonical writings of that period, the Gospel of
Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistles
of Peter, more light can be had than is generally sup
posed.

If we turn first to see how it stood internally with
the Churches in Judaea, we have but one writing at that
time from among them, viz., Matthew's Gospel ; which
already existed in its present form soon after 60. That
of Mark must have been then in existence ; but hardly
that of Luke. On the other hand Luke certainly had
not access to the Gospel of Matthew, else he would
not, in endeavouring to write a perfect account, have
left unsaid so much previously said by Matthew. It
appears as if Matthew and Luke had written almost
simultaneously, yet ignorant [and independent of one
another as authors. And it was most natural that the
endeavour to reduce to written form and deliver authen
tically to the Churches the hitherto oral traditions of
the truth, should appear simultaneously in the two
separate spheres of Paul and of James.

THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 1 69
John, Presbyter, a witness who had seen the Apostles,
informed Papias (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39), that
"Matthew wrote the holy sayings in Hebrew." All
antiquity believed this statement. And yet the Greek
work also has been without question ascribed to Matthew.
Jerome was the first to say that it was uncertain who
had subsequently translated the Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew into Greek. The Nazarenes boasted, although
without ground, that the "Gospel of the Hebrews,"
which they possessed, was the original.
We know that, in the first Christian worship, in the
Church at Jerusalem, as formerly in the synagogue,
two languages strove for the mastery. It was to be
expected that the instruction in the Church, as well as
the record of the words of Christ, should be originally
in that language in which Christ spake, and which was
not only the native, but the sacred tongue, of the
majority. Though there were no witness to this fact,
we should be obliged to assume it. There was really a
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which contained both the
sayings of Christ and His deeds ; for the two were insepa
rable. "Each interpreted it," says John, Presbyter,
"as well as he could; " i.e. each head of a congrega
tion, on reading from it in public worship, added oral
exposition in Greek ; a course to which we find parallels
enough both in the synagogue and in the Church.
Probably these documents were at first communicated
to the teachers only, not to the flocks ; else they would
hardly have disappeared. And it is likely that they
contained not nearly so much as we now have in the
Greek version.
When, however, the Apostles left Palestine, when
one contemporary of Christ after- another fell asleep,

170 THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW.
and when a younger race of clergy and laity arose, it
became necessary to put together, into a publicly sanc
tioned record, the whole treasure of instruction which
the Churches of Palestine had received from the lips of
Peter, John, and James, (the three chief witnesses of
Christ's life,) made complete by the insertion of all that
seemed profitable for the Church at that time. The
result was not a private composition, but a recapitu
lation of the teaching given by the Apostles in common,
attached to and enriching the already stereotyped
form of truth. A sketch, recommended by the autho
rity of Peter, viz., the writing of Mark, was already
there. This might, or rather was entitled to, form the
basis for the complete record. It was necessary that
the individuality of its compiler should not appear ; for
he had, in the name of the whole body of witnesses, to
put their statements in writing. The Mosaic sanctuary
was about to disappear. The Hebrew tongue was in
consequence about to give way before the Greek, as a
bond of union for all Churches. Therefore, this new
record was framed, no longer in Syro-Chaldaic, but in
Greek. Who should be called to this work, either
through special commission from the Apostles, or
through the guidance of circumstances, could not be
previously determined or conjectured. We might guess
James the Bishop, or Philip the Evangelist, had we no
information on the subject. We may therefore the
more confidently assume the statement, that Matthew,
(son of Alphaeus, and one of the twelve,) was the
author, to rest, not on conjecture, but on certain
tradition. Independent of all objections, it is certain that we
have actually in this work the complete narrative of ther

THE GOSPEL OF S. MATTHEW. 171
words and works of Christ, as received by the Hebrew
Churches from the Apostles and their disciples. Its
leading idea is — Christ — promised of the prophets, and
not the destroyer, but the fulfiller of the law, although
the opponent of the Pharisees. The whole is interwoven
with quotations in reference to Messiah: deep and
hard to understand for us on account of their brevity,
but plain to those to whom the disciples of Christ ex
pounded the Old Testament. It was more the part of
an Apostle than that of an Apostle's disciple to give
these expositions of type and prophecy, and thus to fix
the interpretation of the Old Testament. The works
of Christ during the first half of his public ministry
(Matt. iv. — xiv.) are arranged, not chronologically,
as in Mark and Luke, but upon another principle, based,
partly on the mutual similarity, partly on the yet
incompletely discovered typical meaning, of the various
acts of Christ. And the author has used a similar
freedom with the words of our Lord, which are not, as
in Luke, scrupulously associated, each with its proper
occasion, but combined into groups. This creates no
objection to the genuineness of the composition. A
later writer dared not have taken such a latitude.
None but an Apostle, one of the original witnesses,
could have done so, without the danger of affecting the
truth of the representation and the purport of each
part.* This course has caused many difficulties for
the constructor of a harmony of the Gospels. But the
Apostles had something more important to do than to
* All this shows how erroneous is the idea that the inspiration of
the Scriptures excludes the full exercise of man's faculties and
judgment in the writers ; as if God can never be the agent without
man being annihilated. — Tr.

172 PERSECUTION AT JERUSALEM.
publish a chronicle, like a diary, for the satisfaction of
future sceptics and critics. The absolute credibility of
every narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, stands fast,
even if it had been a work at second hand by an
Apostle's disciple, such as Mark or Luke. But the
recent doubts as to Matthew's authorship are groundless.'
The Syro-Chaldaic-Gospel of the Nazarenes was a
third, enlarged but not improved, unapostolic yet not
heretical, edition of this great record of Palestine.
The first edition, the Hebrew work of Matthew, has
been lost. The second, the Greek, forms part of our
canon. Of the third, the " Gospel of the Hebrews,"
fragments survive, which occasionally may be useful as
illustrations of the canonical book.
For the history of the Apostolic age, we have this
datum : that, at the time when the Churches of Pales
tine received the Epistle to the Hebrews, the divine
dignity of Christ, the purpose of God in the calling of
the heathen, and the approaching destruction of the
Mosaic sanctuary, were already recognized amongthem.

The statements in the Acts, as to the presence of
Paul in Judaea, throw clear light upon the external
condition of things there in the year 58. The hatred
of the fanatically orthodox discharged itself against
him as the reputed enemy of the law, while they ex
hibited more toleration towards the strictly legal Chris
tian Church in Jerusalem, and James, its head. The
" myriads " of Christians who were themselves zealots
for the law, had to expect no attack from the Pharisees ;
and the vigorous Roman administration restrained the

MARTYRDOM OF S. JAMES. 1 73
Sadducees then in power, by its jealous control, from any
openly organized persecution of the believers in Mes
siah. This state of affairs, however, did not last. The
Epistle to the Hebrews is of itself proof enough, that,
even before the commencement of the Jewish war, the
Jewish authorities had set on foot a new, severe, and
systematic persecution of the Christians. But we have
other evidence for it ; and especially that of the trust
worthy report by Josephus, in the beginning of the last
book of his Archaeology.
Festus the Procurator died in Judaea, in the be
ginning of 63, after being two years in office. " Nero,
hearing of his death, sent Albinus as Procurator to
Judaea. But the high priest, Ananus the younger, (the
son of Nebedseus,) a man of remarkable daring, and
one of the Sadducean party, which distinguished itself
by judicial cruelty, embraced the occasion of this
interregnum, to gather a Sanhedrin of judges while
Albinus was yet on his way. He brought some before
it, accused of transgressing the law, and (evidently after
the sentence of the Sanhedrin) gave them over to be
stoned. But the more impartial, although themselves
strict legalists, highly disapproved of this. They
secretly sent a demand to king Agrippa IL, that he
would check Ananus by a written admonition. Some
went to Albinus on his way from Alexandria, and re
presented to him that Ananus had no right to pass
such a sentence without his consent; whereupon the
Procurator in anger, wrote to Ananus, threatening him
with inquiry ; and king Agrippa (exercising his right to
appoint and to depose), deposed Ananus, after the
latter had been only three months high priest."
Thus reports Josephus. We omit his mention of James

174 MARTYRDOM OF S. JAMES.
the brother of Christ, as one of those executed on these
grounds. This may be an embellishment, as well as the
other notice of James in his works.* But it is a most
probable thing. We cannot doubt that these " trans
gressors of the law " were Christians. And we find here
exactly the same relation of the three parties, Pha
risees, Sadducees, and Christians, as at the end of the
Acts. The procedure was exactly that followed against
Stephen. And the undoubted martyrdom of James
cannot be placed at a more likely date than this, just
after the death of Festus. Moreover, the narrative of
Hegesippus has here great historical importance.f
In the first place, he speaks of the strict ascetic life
led by James, as a Nazarite and penitent mourner,
of His unwearied prayer in the temple for His people,
and of His high estimation among the multitude. And
then he adds, "He alone went into the temple,"
i.e. He alone had still liberty to enter the temple, at a
time when it was closed against all other Christians.
Yet at length the hatred of those who believed in no
resurrection, and with whom the Pharisees combined,
gained the final mastery. " AH the tribes of Israel and
many heathen guests assembled in Jerusalem for the
passover. Then the enemies of James set him on the
battlement of the temple and cried out to him : ' Thou
Just one, whom we are all bound to obey, tell us,
now that the people allows itself to be led away
after Jesus the crucified One, tell us, whether his doc
trine leads to truth, or error ? ' He answered with a
loud voice, ' Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son
of Man ? He sits in heaven, at the right hand of power,
* Quoted by Eusebius, hist. eccl. ii. 23.
t Eusebius, 1. c.

MARTYRDOM OF S. JAMES. 175
and will come in the clouds of heaven.' Many, being
persuaded, and praising God for the testimony of James,
and crying out Hosanna to the Son of David, his
adversaries exclaimed, ' Alas ! the Just one also is led
astray.' Mounting up, they threw him down ; and, as
he was not yet dead, they began to stone him. But
he sank upon his knees and said, ' I beseech thee, Lord
God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what
they do,' Thereupon one of the priests, a son of
Rechab, called out, Hold ! what do ye ? The Just one
prayeth for you. But one of the fullers struck James
on the head, and he died the martyr's death. On
the same spot they buried him ; and his monu
mental stone still stands near the (site of the) tem
ple. Shortly afterwards Vespasian invaded Judaea."
— We hold this narrative of Hegesippus to be
credible in its essence. There was no longer an Apostle
in Jerusalem. James had, as his episcopal duty, re
quired, stood like a true shepherd by his flock in all
dangers. But the shepherd was to fall and the flock to
be scattered. And this was attempted by endeavouring
to make him openly deny Christ. The most important
part of this relation lies in the words of Hegesippus,
regarding the disposition of James, as contrasted with
the subsequent hatred of Christians towards Jews.
" His knees were grown hard from unremitting prayer
for the forgiveness of his people." He saw their
growing guilt, and approaching judgment. He felt
himself still one of them. Not as accuser, but as
intercessor, did he plead. And in this work of mercy
he was certainly not alone. His Church shared his
feelings. They wrestled in prayer for the turning aside
of vengeance. He prayed for his enemies when dying.

I76 JEWISH EXCOMMUNICATION AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS.
And Hegesippus rightly regarded the events of the
Jewish war as judicial consequences of the violence
done to this just man.
Then few martyrs fell. But the sufferings of the
Christians were great. The Sanhedrin could not freely
punish with death. But its spiritual power remained.
The Council could, without interference on the part of
the Roman governor, have recourse to, and continue
measures of the most afflicting nature against the Chris
tians of Palestine. When Paul was last in Jerusalem,
the Jewish Christians had still free access to the courts
of the sanctuary. They might bring their offerings and
take part in the worship. They yet enjoyed the privi
leges of the orthodox. But the Sanhedrin had power to
deny them these, pronouncing against them, as against
Christ, the greater excommunication. It could require
them either to deny Christ, or, as excommunicate
and accursed, to forfeit all communion with the holy
people and its worship; and it could aggravate this,
not with capital punishment indeed, but with many
forms of oppression. This was done. It is wonderful
that it was not done sooner. It seems to have been
done at the latest under Ananus, the son of Nebedaeus.
And the whole tenor of the Epistle to the Hebrews proves
that it was. That Epistle speaks comfort to the Churches
under a trial exactly similar to that resulting from such
a measure. The trial must indeed have been severe. The faithful
till then clung to the hope that Jesus might still be
acknowledged by their nation. They counted it a
sacred duty to do so. They were filled with the idea
of the unity of the old and new faith and worship. It
was a thing alike important and sacred with them to

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 77
be sons of Israel and Christian believers. They claimed
all the promises which rested on the chosen people.
And now they were called upon to relinquish all this,
and become no better than Samaritans, or heathen,
without the blessing of the Aaronic priesthood, for
bidden the holy place, where their fathers had wor
shipped, and where Christ himself had appeared. The
greater their reverence for the ancient revelations of
God, the more they felt their deprivation. A Gentile
can hardly measure it. In such distress, they might
well be assaulted by temptations to ask, — Whether the
followers of Messiah ought to be separate from His
people ? Whether the divine mission of Jesus was
more certain than the divine election of the Jewish
nation ? Whether He, for whose sake the Christian
clergy demanded a ready renunciation of all part and
lot in the promises given to Israel could really be the
promised One ?*
Whoever may be the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, he comforted and admonished the Hebrew
Christians, with truly apostolic wisdom and grace, in
their hour of trial, when called to make a mighty stride
forwards in faith and knowledge. Of all canonical
Epistles this goes the deepest. It presents strong meat
to even those of full age in Christ. And without a
* Every pious and intelligent Christian must be exposed to similar
temptations at every fresh step which God takes toward perfecting
the Church. Being accustomed to cleave to what he has, as divine.
he feels disposed to regard all progress which transcends the limits
of past attainments, as a renunciation of them, especially if it is not
recognized by those whom he trusts. He fears to make a supposed
exchange of things certain for things uncertain. And nothing but
the supernatural certainty of faith can lead him on. — T.u.

I78 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
living appropriation of the truths contained in it there
can be no growth of the Church to perfection. The
author cautiously approaches the subject of the new
heavenly priesthood, aware how difficult must be its
exposition, and how weak the capacities of the faithful
for its acceptance. (Heb. v. 11.) When about to ex
pound the typical application of the tabernacle to the
Christian Church, he checks himself, with the words,
" of which we cannot now speak particularly." (Heb.
ix. 5.) This is that part of New Testament doctrine
which most demands a yet deeper entrance into the
mysteries of the Scriptures. But at present we adduce
the doctrine, the typical narratives, and typical admoni
tions of this Epistle, in so far only as is necessary to
illustrate the history of the time at which it was
composed. It was then fitting to instruct the faithful as to the
eternal Godhead of the Redeemer, more prominently
than at the first preaching of the Gospel in Palestine,
in order that they might see how far the new covenant
transcended the old, and how the old, in spite of its
divine origin, must wane before the new. It was time
to disclose to them the heavenly priesthood exercised
by the risen Christ, when they were cut off from the
blessings of the Aaronic. It was time to teach them
the essence of Christian worship, their boldness of
access to God, and the acceptableness of New Testa
ment sacrifices, when excluded from the Mosaic cere
monial. Such was the occasion for the dogmatic part
of the Epistle.
The Mosaic law was given by disposition of angels.
It was needful that the new law before which it was to
vanish, should be promulgated by One higher than

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 79
angels.* The Son, by whom God has spoken unto
us in these last days of the world, was that One ; — He
by whom God made the worlds, who is appointed heir
of all things, and ruler of the world to come. His
sufferings, at which the fleshy mind of the Jew took
offence, were in strict analogy with the history of those
merely human sons of God, in the Old Testament, who
came to honor through humility. And these sufferings
formed His very qualification to be the faithful High
Priest, the helper of all who are alike tempted. (Heb.
i. — ii.)
Moses the mediator of the Old Covenant, was faithful
indeed, yet only as a servant. The Mediator of the
New Covenant is the Son Himself. We, who are His,
wander now through the wilderness. This is our time
of trial, as the forty years for Israel. The promised
Sabbath is yet before us. (Heb. iii. i — iv. 13.)
Aaron, although the high priest of the chosen people,
was on earth, and mortal. We have a High Priest
who has passed through the heavens, called, in the Old
Testament itself, a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedec. (Heb. iv. 14 — v. 10.) In such a desig
nation are implied a change of the priesthood, the
abolishing of the legal covenant, and the introduction
of a better. The old withered away into impotence,
* We do not understand the author to deny that, although Christ
as God, was higher than all angels, yet, as man, he was not exalted
over them till he was raised from the dead. Till then he shared in
the subjection of the whole world, with man at its head, to the
angels. And the present superiority of Christ, and of us in Him, to
them,«results, not from their detrusion, or the cessation of their
functions, but from our farther exaltation to a place which man had
not occupied before. — Tr. N 2

180 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
till it vanished before the new, the perfect, and the-
heavenly. (Heb. vii. I — x. 18.)
Every individual part of the former sanctuary and
service now finds, like the whole, its more exalted
antitype among us.* But the writer confines himself to
the entrance of the high priest into the holiest with
the blood of the sin offering, and applies this to the
first great high priestly act of Christ, who, having been
the sin offering on the cross, has gone as the High Priest
with His own blood into the holiest in heaven, — there
to appear before God for us, and thence to come forth
unto them who wait for Him. (Heb. ix. 28. )t
So much for the dogmatic portions. Thus are those
addressed who have just sustained a great loss. And
the compensation to which they are here pointed refers,
as plainly as any historical document could have done,
to the blessings and privileges snatched from the Chris
tians in Palestine, as those things of which the loss was
thus to be supplied. One thus sees how opportune are
the warnings given against apostasy, blasphemy, and
the crucifying of Christ afresh. (Heb. vi. 4, &c. ; x. 26,.
&c.) One sees how suitable is the comparison between
our sufferings and those of Christ, how comforting the
assurance of His sympathy with the tempted, and how
emphatic are the words, " He suffered, (as one excom
municate,) without the gate. Let us go forth unto Him
* The tabernacle typified the Church militant, the temple the
Church triumphant. — Tr.
t We have grace now to bring in His name the acceptable
sacrifice of His body and blood as the thankful memorial of His
passing into heaven ; and we have the same, as our heavenly food,
on an altar of which none have power to eat who serve the
tabernacle. — Tr.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. l8l
and bear His reproach ; for we have here no continuing
city, but seek one to come." (Heb. xiii. 12 — 14.) One
understands the motive for the repeated exhortation to
bring the spiritual offerings of praise and good works,
when those addressed had lost their share in the
Mosaic services. One understands the injunction,
"Obey them that are over you," (no longer those who
are over the Jews) " for they " (no longer the Jewish
priesthood) "watch for your souls." (Heb. xiii.
IS— 170
All this is equally clear from the typical narra
tives to which the Epistle points the attention of the
Hebrews. Those selected in the eleventh chapter are
not merely examples of faith in God generally. They
are so chosen and so expressed, that each one of them
describes the very case in which the Christians of Pales
tine were at the time, and records an achievement of
faith in a trial precisely similar to theirs. Why, passing
over so many other noble acts of faith, are we told
that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, and Jacob
the sons of Joseph ? (Heb. xi. 20, 21.) This is a question
which no commentator can answer, unless he adverts
to the actual situation of those to whom the Epistle
was addressed, and to the analogy between those Old
Testament events and that situation. In this way the
author managed to set before the Hebrew Christians,
as delicately, and yet as emphatically, as Stephen did
to the Sanhedrin, the coming fate of their nation, and at
the same time to disclose to them the futurity of the
Church. The separation between the Church and the syna
gogue was appointed to be effected through many
sorrows. The Church of Christ, like the younger late

Io3 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
born son of the family, was persecuted by the elder
brother, Israel after the flesh. This view, already
familiar to us from the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal.
iv. 22), gives the key to many of these types, in some
of which it is yet easier to discover the relation of the
Church to its oppressors. Abel brought by faith a
better offering than Cain. (Heb. xi. 4.) Israel was
then acting like Cain towards the Church. God ac
cepts the Christian worship and not the Mosaic. By
faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death.
(Heb. xi. 5.) He prophesied of the coming flood.
Before it came, he was removed. So should the faith
ful be rescued from among the Jews, and escape their
judgment. Noah, moved with fear, builded an ark, to
the saving of his house. '(Heb. xi. 7.) The Christians
saw in the Church their deliverance from the evil to
come. As Abraham did (Heb. xi. 8.), so did they leave
their home, become strangers on earth, and, instead of
an earthly Jerusalem, wait for a heavenly city of God.
As, from the barren Sarah, children, innumerable as
the stars and the sand, were born (Heb. xi. 11), so
should the Church, by patience in the day of small things^
bear multitudes of the heathen, the spiritual seed of
Abraham. Abraham, when tried, offered Isaac, his
only son, on whom the promise hung, believing that God
would raise him from the dead. (Heb. xi. 17.) So did
God demand from these Christians the sacrifice of that
which was dearest to them — people, temple, worship^.
all appointed of God, and bound up with His promises.
They did so in faith, and received all again, in a higher
form, as raised from the dead. Isaac blessed the
younger son with the rights of the first-born, forfeited
by Esau (Heb. xi. 20) ; for Israel, acting the part of

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. I83
Esau, had driven away the Christians with threats, and
had forfeited the primogeniture. And in like manner
the better blessing came on Joseph's younger son.
Joseph when dying, prophesied the Exodus. The
Christians had begun their Exodus from among a
people laden with heavier judgments than that of
Egypt. Through faith was Moses as a child hid three
months by his parents, who did not fear the command
of the king. (Heb. xi. 23.) The Church also did not
fear the prohibition of those in power, or betray the
trust of God, but kept it with care. Moses would not
be called a son of Pharaoh's daughter, preferring to
suffer with the people of God, esteeming the reproach
of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.
. In faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king.
In faith he kept the Passover, that the destroyer might
not touch the Israelites. In faith they passed through
the Red Sea. The Christians had the same choice.
They bore with Christ the shame of expulsion. In spite
of the threats of tyrants they worshipped God according
to His commandments, and thereby escaped the judg
ment which lighted on their adversaries. They found
the way to escape, as through the Red Sea, while
their enemies both behind and before them perished.
Through faith the walls of Jericho fell, compassed
about seven days. (Heb. xi. 30.) The earthly Jeru
salem assumed the character and met the fate of the
city of Canaan. Patience had its perfect work in the
Church, and was crowned with victory. Through faith
Rahab perished not with the unbelievers, having re
ceived the spies. (Heb. xi. 31.) The faithful were,
like her, in the midst of those ripe for judgment. They
believed the announcement of destruction, and were

184 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
exempt. Finally, they contended like the Judges, like
David, Elias, and the prophets, and like the Maccabean
martyrs, who all received not the promise, and could
not be made perfect without the Christian Church.
(Heb. xi. 39, 40.)
In connexion with this view of the passage stand
some special historical events. It is almost certain,
that the high priests and the Council issued an express
prohibition against the Christian worship, to which the
words "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves
together as the manner of some is" (Heb. x. 25),
have a marked reference, and which drove the Chris
tians to assemble in secret. It is also probable that
the Christians were not only denied the temple, but
banished from Jerusalem. The Jewish authorities
might have ventured thus far even during the presence
of a Roman Governor. It is plain that the writer
sought to prepare the faithful for that expatriation
which Christ Himself had pointed out as the way of
deliverance. And all this makes it manifest that the
Epistle was really addressed to the Churches in
Palestine, and that, at a time when the Jewish polity
still subsisted.
This explains also why the warnings here given
against cleaving to Mosaism, are of a character so
different from those given to the Galatians and
Colossians. When Paul, or another Christian teacher,
deals elsewhere with Judaism, his topics are, cir
cumcision, the keeping of the Sabbath, and the
distinction of meats. Here these subjects are not
touched ; not because these things had been already
renounced, but because it was deemed right to allow
their continuance for a season. On the other hand,

THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 85
however, the writer seems to go further than Paul, in
pressing upon Jews separation from the Aaronic priest
hood and worship. On any other theory this difficulty
cannot be solved. But on that above stated the
answer is self-evident Circumcision, Sabbath, and
meats, were matters on which the faithful in Palestine
were untroubled. But they were excluded from one
worship and forbidden a better. They were in this
Epistle encouraged to go on in the exclusive celebration
of the latter. Such was the matter in hand at this
great turning point of their history. The other and
minor questions were postponed. And it is remarkable
that the Nazarenes, the decendants of the Hebrew
Christians, while acknowledged partakers of the
common faith, actually continued their Jewish obser
vances* and remained exactly where this Epistle,
although pointing to a period when Mosaism should
disappear, left them for the time then being.
But who was it that sent forth this Epistle, full of
Apostolic power and authority, in the hour of danger ?
The above investigations, and the value of the Epistle,
are in no way affected by the answer to this question,
whether its author was Paul, (according to the con
stant assertion of the Eastern Church, and the more
recent assertion of the Western), or another person ?
It is with this document as with a magnificent painting,
held to be by Raphael. If the painting is proved to be
by another, we do not lose a classic work of art ; we
merely gain one master more of the highest order.
But this question of authorship is important for the
* Mosheim, de rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum M.
J7S3P- 328.

1 86 THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
history of the time ; more so than for doctrine. And
therefore we must here touch upon it.
Of the very ancient differences between the Eastern
and Western Churches, which appeared in the second
and third centuries, one was, that the Epistle to the
Hebrews was publicly read in the East, and not in the
West. The Councils and doctors of the fourth and.
fifth centuries put an end to this discrepance. Paul's
authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews was attested
in the East, not by an opinion of the learned, but by a
tradition of the Church. This belief cannot be justly
deduced from the leaning of the Alexandrian theolo
gians to allegory, or, more properly speaking, from
their peculiar capacity for understanding the prophetic
depths of the Scriptures. The same belief pervaded
Syria, influenced even the half rationalist teachers of
Antioch, and was held in Palestine itself, where one
might expect the surest information as to the history of
such a treasure, inherited from its original possessors.
The Epistle was known in the West, but not adopted
into the canon, and not known to be by Paul. Some of
the most enlightened fathers never used it. Some
questioned it ; which they could not have done, had it
formed part of the canon.' Indeed they called it in
question because schismatics adduced it. The Mon-
tanists and Novatians cited the sixth and tenth chapters
as yielding the clearest proof of their truculent doctrine,
regarding the irrevocable excommunication of the
fallen. And what does Tertullian, the maintainer of
similar doctrines, say ? He does not, as he would too
gladly have done, if he could, say, " It is the writing of
Paul," but " It is the work, not indeed of an Apostle

THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 87
but of an Apostle's companion, Barnabas." (Tertull.
de pudic. 20.)
The learned in Alexandria acknowledged the inter
nal arguments against Paul's authorship. The words
of Origen are excellent (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25).
" Every well instructed person must own that the
language of the Epistle is purer Greek than that
of Paul, and yet that the thoughts are wonderful, and
not inferior to those of the Apostle. We may there
fore take the contents as Paul's, the expression and
construction as those of another, who wrote down and
expounded what the master had said. Therefore it can
only be to the praise of a Church to receive the Epistle
as the work of Paul. For the ancients have not with
out good grounds handed down the tradition that it was
so. God knoweth who wrote it down. The investiga
tions of some (Clement of Alexandria and Pantaenus)
have assigned the work conjecturally, to Clement (of
Rome) or to Luke."
The question stands to this day where it did then.
In addition to the difference of style, we must notice
the quotations from the Old Testament, which are cer
tainly taken from the Greek translation. On the other
hand the substance stands in complete harmony with
the acknowledged Epistles of Paul. Indeed it forms
their crown, and is especially worthy of him. One can
not avoid seeing Paul in the last chapter. Yet it is
as difficult to find him in the second. (Heb. ii. 3.) If
we err not, he himself, as was his wont, wrote the con
clusion, and did not dictate, as usual, but entrusted
to the composition of another the leading ideas of the
remainder. Now, is no trace of this other to be found
in tradition 1 The words of Tertullian read like tra-

155 THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
dition, not conjecture. And as we do not, from other
sources, know what the Churches of Asia Minor thought
on the subject, it is probable that Tertullian received
his information from those from whom he got his whole
opinions at that period of his religious history. It
were folly to demand certainty in such things, like
our modern critics. But it is in a high degree probable
that Barnabas was that compiler of the thoughts of
Paul, whom the teachers of Alexandria in vain sought
to discover. Luther's idea, lately revived, that Apollos
compiled the Epistle, is without a vestige of support
from antiquity.
In this manner did Paul comfort the flocks of Judaea,
when their shepherd was taken from them, and the
Apostles to Israel were no longer among them. He
excuses his attempt with the same modesty with which
he does his Epistle to the Romans. (Heb. xiii. 22.)
But he does not feel himself fettered by the compact
which he and Barnabas had made with Peter, James,
and John some fourteen years before (Gal. ii. 9), as to
the division of labour. If that had not previously come
to an end, it must at least have lost its force when the
Apostle to the heathen became a prisoner. The
mission of two Apostles to the heathen was what war
ranted Peter and his associates in confining themselves
to the Jews. When Paul was arrested, the duty of the
first Apostles, to care for the heathen world and Gentile
Churches revived. At the same time the end of the
Jewish polity approached. The signs of the times were
clear to the enlightened. The first Apostles were about
to lose their Jewish field of labour. And as, at the par
tition, the two classes of Apostles had joined hands,
in token of brotherhood in diverse labours, so did they,

THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 89
practically declare the unity of themselves, of their
office, and of the whole Church, before all Christendom,
when the Apostles for the Gentiles turned to the Israelite
Churches, and the Apostles for Judaea turned to the
Gentile Churches in Asia Minor. The Israelites were
exhorted by Paul under the persecution by Ananus.
The Gentiles were comforted by Peter in the prospect
of that by Nero. The first Epistle of Peter, unquestioned
by all antiquity, and proved by its contents to have been
addressed to Gentile Christians, is testimony enough,
that the separation of the two apostleships, if it ever
had been so rigid as to exclude mutual support and
aid, no longer subsisted in that degree of strictness.
But how could Paul venture to address those Chris
tians whom, twenty-four years before, he would have
compelled to blaspheme ? What acceptance could he
expect among those who had never been thoroughly
persuaded of his office ? Even if encouraged to it by
Peter, his duty was hard. He did not venture to com
port himself as in his other Epistles. He needed one
to introduce him, and open the hearts of the faithful
towards him. Such a one he already had. Barnabas
was at once a member of the first Church and an
Apostle to the heathen, one in all essentials with Paul,
and yet trusted in Jerusalem ; from the first occupied
with the reconciliation of Paul and James. Once more,
then, he introduced Paul to Jerusalem ; as formerly in
person, so now by the Epistle to the Hebrews.
We are quite free to assume that Barnabas was re
conciled with Paul, and again beside him. Mark,
about whom they had quarrelled, was already again
with Paul, at Caesarea. (Col. iv. 10.) To Barnabas
Paul imparted all that was on his heart on behalf of

I9O THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S. PETER.
the oppressed churches of Israel. Barnabas wrought
this out for him with his own peculiar talent, in words
which Paul could subscribe as the expression of his own
doctrine and will. We may suppose that Barnabas, a
Hellenist of Cyprus, had that high education and that
intimate acquaintance with Greco-religious literature,
which the Epistle displays. And although, as regarded
oral delivery, Paul was compared to Mercury, and Bar
nabas to Jupiter (Acts xiv. 12) ; the latter may have
exhibited in writing the greater calmness, rhythm, and
polish. He was a Levite, and therefore versant in the
Mosaic ceremonial : he was a prophet, and therefore
the composition beams with light : he was called " the
son of consolation," and therefore no part of Scripture
contains so much encouragement as this " word of ex
hortation" (Heb. xiii. 22): lastly, he had apostolical
authority like Paul, and therefore could speak as no
Luke, Clement, or Apollos could, to these, the most
venerable Churches in the world.

About the beginning of the seventh decennary, the
greatest strength of Christianity was concentrated at
Rome. Peter went thither for the second time; not
as formerly, under Claudius, to confine himself to the
Jews, but to preach with Paul to the Gentiles. A fixed
centre of Christianity, as a city set on a hill, was
needed in the West. And for this, no place was so
suitable, none had such a manifest claim, or promised
such influence, as Rome. It was the dictate of divine
wisdom that both these Apostles should conjointly do

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S. PETER. Igl
their best and their last, to deposit their spiritual
treasures in the Roman congregation, and be there
ready to seal their doctrine with their blood.
Soon after the dispatch of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
Peter sent his Epistle, in the year 63 or 64, to the
Churches " in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia." Hence we see that flocks had meanwhile
been gathered in those parts also of Asia Minor
which Paul had not visited. The southern coasts alone
are here omitted. And it is plain, from the Epistle
itself, that these Churches had been called out of
almost total heathen darkness, and contained hardly
any Jewish element. (1 Pet. iv. 3.)
The fellow-laborers of Paul must have prosecuted
his work with great success, starting from the places
already won by him. In a few years, as Ephesus
christianized Bithynia, so had the cities of Lycaonia the
interior of Galatia, and Cappadocia. It would appear,
from the agreement as to Easter, that Pontus was con
verted, not through Ephesus, but through the more
adjacent Antioch. Bithynia, already quite Greek, had
received the truth so rapidly, that in forty years the
heathen worship had almost disappeared. The exten
sion of the Greek language, the immigration of the
Jews, and the introduction of Roman law, had pre
pared the way for the Gospel in the most distant parts
of Asia Minor. In this rich portion of the world the
most diverse elements awaited the combining and
purifying influence of Christianity. First, the abori
gines of Phrygia, with their worship of the shapeless
mother of the gods, and with their fanatic priesthood.
Then the Celtic immigrants, who, in adventurous anti
cipation of subsequent national migrations, had crossed

192 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S. PETER.
the Hellespont, and who retained, in their new mountain-
abodes, their constitution, till the times of the first
Caesars, and their language, till those of Jerome, who
found it the same with that of the Treviri. Then the
Cappadocians, the farthest from Greek civilization,
with an idolatry and a slave-trade which answered to
their want of culture. Southwards from the Taurus,
lived Semitic tribes. And on the north coast, in the
kingdom of Mithridates, dwelt a tribe, belonging to
the Indo-Germanic race, and related to the Armenians
and Persians, a tribe among whom the doctrines and
rites of Zoroaster, prevalent among their Armenian
neighbours, had found entrance. Most probably the
small Churches of the Apostolic age were first planted
in those cities which afterwards became important as
Metropolitan, or at least Episcopal, seats ; e.g. Nico-
media in Bithynia, Ancyra in Galatia, Neocaesarea in
Cappadocia, and Sinope in Pontus.
Peter himself gives us to understand that his object,
in addressing the newly-planted Churches in those
lands, was to bear his concurrent testimony, that the
word preached among them by Paul and his disciples,
was eternal truth, and that they stood in the true grace
of God. (1 Pet. i. 12, 25 ; v. 12 ; 2 Pet. iii. 15.) He
would stamp the work of the Apostle to the heathen.
He saw, in those Churches which formed the centre of
the great camp of Christ among the nations, that holy
people and chosen generation (1 Pet. ii. 9), to which
the privileges of Israel had, in a glorified form, passed
over ; the stones of that spiritual temple which should
both succeed and surpass that of Solomon. (1 Pet. ii. 5.)
Sylvanus, the prophet (1 Pet. v. 12), who had once
accompanied Paul over a part of these lands, served

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S. PETER. 1 93
Peter in the preparation and conveyance of the Epistle,
and in thus giving practical proof of spiritual unity.
And it is not surprising that Peter should have had
in his eye and referred to the Epistles of Paul to the
Ephesians and Colossians. He had learnt something
from Paul, even as to the divine purposes. And the
masterly didactic writings of Paul, e.g. that to the
Romans, may well have exercised a certain influence
on those of Peter.
But a second object is equally obvious; namely, to
strengthen the Christians in the prospect of a widely
extended persecution. The Epistle of Peter shews
that public opinion and the Roman authorities had
assumed a new attitude towards the Christians. Till
then Christianity appeared to the heathen nothing but
an unimportant variety of Jewish superstition. Although
the Jews did what they could to excite the civil power
against the Christians, they had not succeeded. In
Macedonia, in Corinth, in Palestine itself, they were
repelled, and the Christians acquitted, although not
always shielded from violence. The words of Gallio
(Acts xviii. 14, 15), and of Festus (Acts xxv. 18, 19,
25, 26), express the views of the Roman governors and
judges. But under Nero's rule things changed. In
many places the faithful came to be distinguished, as
Xpianavoi, from the Jews. (Acts xi. 26; 1 Pet. iv. 16.)
And this must have been the more the case, the more
important and independent the Churches became ¦ under
Paul. The spread of a monotheism, which supplanted
all other religions and denied the Roman gods, could not
long remain unheeded at a time when informers were
so busy. And, as some fearless Christians, who held
places in the army or in the magistracy, had already

194 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S. PETER.
come into collision with the customs of the empire,
it needed very little to bring the whole sect to be re
garded as politically dangerous by those in power. But
the most powerful argument against the Christians arose
from the hatred of the heathen at the pure, humble,
and chaste conversation of the faithful. The inter
nal character of the Church, and its mysteries hidden
from the eye of the profane, were things which the
heathen might explain in ways accordant with their
own debasements, as being secret institutions for the
exercise of monstrous unnameable crimes. And at
that very time a horrid event happened in the bosom
of the Church which might have seemed to justify such
an idea. The doctrine published by Paul was for the
first time perverted and employed as a cloak for
wickedness. There arose persons in the Church, who,
adorning a heathenish life with a Christian nomen
clature, kept in secret shameful orgies, under the name
of Christian agapse or love-feasts. The later writings
of the New Testament establish this. If but one case
of the kind came to the ears of the heathen, it was enough
to stamp all meetings of the faithful. Men regarded the
secret as detected. The pains taken by the apolo
gists of the second century to meet such slanders,
shews how widely these slanders must have spread
in a few years. Feasts on human flesh, like those of
Thyestes — incest, like that related of CEdipus — were
the abominations 'ascribed to the secret assemblies of
the faithful : the former, a distortion of the eucharist,
the latter, of the agape. Tacitus tells us distinctly, that
these accusations were current and generally believed,
and formed the chief motive for that universal hatred
of the Christians which found vent in the persecution

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF S. PETER. I95
under Nero. On no other supposition could he have
reckoned Christianity among the " horrid and shameful
things " {atrocia et pudendal) which were concentrated
from all quarters in Rome. In the absence of all
positive proof, universal rumour and instinctive hatred
seemed evidence enough. (Tacitus, Ann. xv. 44.)
Peter also refers to these very slanders and the con
sequent persecutions (1 Pet. i. 6; ii. 12; iii. 14; iv. 1,
12 — 19), when he says that the enemy and the accuser,
kindling animosity by such suspicions, sought thereby
to frighten the faithful into apostasy and eternal ruin ;
going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he might
devour. (1 Pet. v. 8, 9.)
The Christians had now no hope of protection from
the state, and everything to fear from the populace.
Rome gave the signal for universal attack. The blind
rage of a population brutified by the combats of wild.
beasts and gladiators, combined with the arbitrary rule
of a centralized universal despotism, to make the pro
spects most ominous. In the same city appeared at once
the foundation of a Christian dominion over the spirits
of men and the anti-christian developement of the
ancient heathen power. Rome became for the Chris
tians what Babylon had been for the Jews. As the
Jews, in their dispersion, longed like strangers for their
home, so did the Christians scattered throughout the
Roman empire, constitute the holy seed, — the nation
of pilgrims, — who waited for a better country. Hence
they succeed to the appellation " Diaspora," and
Rome to that of "Babylon." (1 Pet. i. i; v. 13.) Both
appellations, the one at the beginning, the other at the
end of Peter's Epistle, are to be understood mystically.
The Church " elect together with you at Babylon," is
0 2

I96 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF S. PETER.
the Roman Church, exposed to the very dangers of
the Churches in Asia Minor. The statement of Euse
bius, (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 15), borrowed from his
predecessors, is highly creditable, that this " Babylon,"
meant Rome. None of the ancients has, so far as we
know, understood the passage otherwise. None has
thought of applying it to the Babylon on the Euphrates*
Peter's first Epistle was for the strengthening of the
faithful against the storm from without. Shortly after,
not long before his death, he gave forth his second,.
also encyclical, and addressed in the first instance to
the same Churches, in order to protect them against
equally dangerous internal enemies. Like the dying song
of Moses, and the parting address of Paul to the elders
of Ephesus, so is this last word of Peter a prophecy of
coming conflicts, then only threatening. He saw, as
Paul had previously done (2 Thess. ii. 7), that the
mystery of iniquity was already at work. It must have
shewn itself in scattered tokens, from which he argued
its progress and judgment. Christ Himself had said,
that, after the good seed should have been scattered in
the world, the enemy should secretly sow tares, — " the
children of the wicked one," — men in whom evil should
reach a higher pass than at any former period. The
Christian who becomes infidel and wicked, surpasses
* It is thus remarkable how the Romish Church, in assuming the
universal authority, has also unconsciously acquired the mystical
title, of heathen Rome, Yet " Babylon " in the Apocalypse does
not express any one Romish or other section of Christendom, but
that condition of Christendom as a whole, in which, being the
mystery of God's future kingdom, it has, by departing from His
ways, hindered its revelation. The ,Romish Church is but the
chief street of Babylon. And she exclusively deserves the name
only in so far as she exclusively claims to be the Church. — Tr.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF S. PETER. I97
both heathen and Jew. He possesses a power of cor
ruption peculiar to his new standing. Our Lord pro
phesied that the days before his return, i.e. during the
time of the Church militant, should be like those of
Noah. As then mankind apostatized from original
revelation, and rebelled against God, so should it be
in the Christian economy also : and the end of this latter
crime should be the antitype of the flood. These pro
phetic thoughts, which the Church has best learned to
understand in modern times, as the end approaches,
occupy the second Epistle of Peter and that which Jude
cast in the same mould, and were occasioned by the first
appearance of heathen corruptions in Christianity —
impurity and gnostic pride — through ;the perversion
of Paul's writings to justify licentiousness, and to
construct a gnosis which elevated its possessors above
the moral law. These delusions proceeded from men,
who, although once heathen, had been really cleansed
and enlightened. (2 Pet. i. 9; ii. 20 — 22.) Instead of
fulfilling their office as stars in the ecclesiastical firma
ment, they became ignesfatui (Jude 13), and are com
pared, both with Balaam, who, once a prophet of God,
became a snare to God's people, and with Cain, who
murdered his brother. (2 Pet. ii. 15 ; Jude 11.) They
used shameful arts to mislead the simple and newly
converted. They dealt in high sounding promises of
true liberty. And they sold their esoteric doctrines for
lucre's sake. (2 Pet. ii. 13, 18, 19; Jude 16.) On
the denial of the resurrection, followed the denial of
Christ's return to judgment. (2 Pet. i. 16; iii. 4.)
They held that, as the first believers had fallen asleep
without witnessing it, all things should remain as they
were from the beginning of the creation. We

I98 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF S. PETER.
know little of their positive teaching. But, when it is
said that they were not afraid to speak evil of dignities
(2 Pet. ii. 10 ; Jude 8), we are reminded of a doctrine
already ascribed to Simon the sorcerer, that the angels,
who had part in the creation of the world, were inferior
beings, inimical powers, above whom the initiated stood
far exalted.
The warning which Peter gave before his departure
against this evil was probably required only by few
Churches at the time. It was directed more to the
future (2 Pet. i. 14, 15), like a testament to be opened
long after the death of the testator. To whom it was
entrusted, and whether the wishes of the writer were
rightly fulfilled, we do not know. But we do know that
the Epistle found no place in the primitive Canon which
existed in the second and third centuries. When that
Canon was first defined, the time to which the Epistle -
applied had not come. And subsequently, when the
apostolic authority had disappeared, and the new
authority of universal Councils had not yet arisen in its-
place, no additions to the Canon were admitted, even
although unquestionably authentic. This explains the
resistance to the acknowledgement of this Epistle, when
it came forth from its obscurity. The first Church that
had it, and the first teachers who expounded it were
those at Alexandria. But the Church at large was in
the course of time persuaded by its internal worth, both
of its genuineness and of its inspiration; and, when the
Canon was rendered complete in the fourth century, the
second Epistle of Peter was universally and without
difficulty received as one of the seven catholic Epistles.
And, the more gigantic the corruption, and the
nearer the judgment, therein foretold, daily become,.

S. PETER AND S. PAUL AT ROME. I99
the more cause has Christendom to hold fast this sacred
document. We shall conclude this chapter with a few words as
to the end of the two princes of the Apostles at Rome.
Luke concludes his history without saying what decision
the emperor gave in the case of Paul. And the writings
of Paul leave us equally in the dark. But Luke's words
lead us to expect — first, that the Apostle really found
opportunity to give testimony before the ruler of the
world — and second, that an acquittal followed. Ac
cording to the report of Festus, the Jews could not but
be cast in their suit against Paul ; for at that time, a.d.
61, there was as yet no charge against the Christians
brought before the Imperial Court. The persecution did
not arise till four years later.
It is very doubtful whether Paul fulfilled his intention
of going into Spain. The supposition of a second
captivity in Rome has its origin in erroneous views as
to the dates of his Epistles. The latest of all, that to
the Hebrews, cannot be placed later than 63. Although
the general result of his labours in Rome is clear, we
have no certain information as to details. Were his
Epistle to the Philippians really dated from Rome, and
not from Caesarea, we should know that there were
converts of his in the Praetorian camp and in the house
of Caesar himself. But this "Caesar's household" (Phil.
iv. 22), may have been the family of the imperial liber
tine Felix, and the Praetorium (Phil. i. 13), the Hero-
dian palace, in which Paul was kept at Caesarea. (Acts
xxiii. 35.) Tradition makes Paul the converter of the
philosopher Seneca. The writings of the latter show
that he had really come in contact with Christianity.
But this is all. As representative of the Stoic doctrine

200 NERO S PERSECUTION.
of virtue, and as one of those murdered by Nero,
Seneca might easily have been regarded by posterity,
without sufficient ground, as a witness for the truth of
Christianity. The strongest testimony to the impression made by
the labors of the two Apostles upon the population of
Rome, is to be found in the words of Tacitus (Tac.
Ann. xv. 44) : " The originator of the Christian name,
Christ, was, under the government of Tiberius, punished
with death by the governor Pontius Pilate. But the
pernicious superstition, thereby checked for a time,
broke out again {rursus erumpebaf), not only in Judaea,
where the evil arose, but also in the capital {per ur
bem)'.' He sees, therefore in that which preceded the
Roman persecution, a second rise of Christianity ana
logous to the results of our Lord's own appearance in
Palestine, a progress so rapid and marked, as to
rivet the attention and then to excite the anger of
the people ; so that, as the first appearance of Peter in
Rome led to the banishment of the Jews by Claudius,
his second led to the persecution of the Christians by
Nero. Nero's better days were past. He had fallen into a
condition (fortunately for the human race a rare one),
in which, the base courting of popularity was combined
with folly, lust, and thirst for blood. It was against
this diabolically corrupted monster, invested with the
highest power on earth, that the two great witnesses of
Christ had to contend at the beginning of the dispen
sation ; a conflict of light and darkness, such as shall be
re-enacted at the time of the end.
Six days had already lasted the greatest conflagra-

XER0S PERSECUTION. 201
tion which Rome had ever seen,* of which it is
uncertain whether it was the effect of chance or the
crafty work of the emperor. Tacitus records both
opinions. Nero did indeed provide refuge for the
houseless who had not perished in the narrow streets
and lofty buildings. But neither by this, nor by his
great schemes of restoration, nor by his offerings to the
gods, could he disabuse the people of the idea that he
had been the incendiary. "Then," says Tacitus, "in
order to meet this charge, he cast the guilt upon the
Christians already made hateful to the people by their
horrid crimes ; and he tormented them with the most
refined modes of punishment. At first some were seized,
who made confessions, and then, on their information,
an immense number, who although not convicted of fire-
raising, were convicted-, through the hatred of the
whole human race, as worthy of death. Insult was
added to murder. Some, wrapt in the skins of beasts,
were bitten to death by dogs. Some were crucified.
Some covered with combustible stuffs, were burnt at
night, to light the streets." (Juvenal mentions that
they burnt like torches, standing with their throats
fastened to stakes.t) " Nero had opened his gardens
for this exhibition. And he instituted games in the circus,
in which he himself, clothed as a charioteer and mounted
on a chariot, mixed with the crowd. All this excited
the compassion of the people, even for those guilty and
worthy of the severest punishment whom they saw
*It broke out on the 19th of July, 64. A. d. Clinton, Fasti
Romani. Oxf. 1845. i. p. 45.
t Juvenal, satir. i, 1 55-

202 S. PETER'S AND S. PAULS MARTYRDOM.
sacrificed, not to the public good, but to the barbarity
of one man." Thus far Tacitus.
Paul and Peter were two of this "immense number"
of martyrs. Their graves were shown in the second
century — that of Peter on the Vatican— that of Paul on
the way to Ostia. (Caius, the Presbyter, ap. Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. ii. 25.) There is no ground for placing their
martyrdom, which undoubtedly occurred under Nero,
at the end of his reign, or for placing the interval of
a year between their deaths. The statement, that, while
Paul,, as a Roman Citizen, underwent the nobler death
of beheading, Peter was crucified, is supported, not
only by the fathers, but by the last chapter of John
(John xxi. 18, 19), the words of which, whatever more
they may mean, clearly point to Peter's crucifixion.
If the Church in Ephesus, at the end of the first century,
when this chapter was added to John's Gospel, knew
what death Peter had suffered, they surely also knew
where he had died. It is impossible that tradition
should have substituted a wrong place for the right
one. Alljantiquity unanimously regards Rome as the
place of Peter's death. Those only can regard his
coming thither and his end there as a fable, who, for
party ends, are ready to wipe out history, and write
their own fancies in its place.
It is not said that bloody orders against the Chris
tians were sent into the provinces. But it is to be
assumed, that the example, set in the capital, was fol
lowed, in many places by the authorities, in others by
the populace. Such was the state of the public mind,
that Peter, on the approach of the storm, could say,.
that the like sufferings were endured by all Christians
throughout the world. (1 Pet. v. 9.) No names of

s. peter's and s. paul's martyrdom. 203
martyrs are handed' down as belonging to this time.
Nor do we know what impression these events made
on the faithful. But both sections of the Church,
Hebrew and Greek, were struck as by one blow in the
deaths of the two apostolic pillars. And we may con
clude, that while the Pauline Churches were led to
cherish Paul's memory, both parts of the Church were
brought into closer union,, by their common loss, and
by the common labours and sufferings of those whom
they had lost.

CHAPTER III.
THE LABOURS OF S. JOHN, AND THE STATE OF THE CHURCH
AT THE END OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
Whilst all this was passing at Rome, that storm
was gathering over Judaea which destroyed the holy city.
The predictions of Christ, of Stephen, and of the two
Apostles to the heathen (in their letter to the Hebrew
Christians), were fulfilled. Centuries of grace and long-
suffering were succeeded by days of inevitable judgment
on an impenitent people. All those places which noble
recollections, and Christ's own presence, had rendered
sacred, became scenes of tribulation; and Jerusalem

204 CAUSES OF THE JEWISH WAR.
itself became the theatre of a reign of terror, which
has had no parallel save in the first French revolution.
The day came for the fall of this holy Ilium. The
story of its destruction, worthy of a bard like Homer,
or a historian like Tacitus, is preserved by no other
witness than the apostate Jew, Flavius Josephus. Yet,
although he mixes up with the great subject the ex
cuse of his own base character and faithless conduct,
although he fails to represent aright the deeper reli
gious grounds of the desperate conflict, although he
loads those whom he forsook with exaggerated accusa
tions, and withholds the praise due to their heroism ;
still that which he states is to be relied on, where the
events occurred in his vicinity, and where his own
vanity is not concerned. Tacitus, one competent to
judge, has, by drawing his narrative* chiefly from
Josephus, testified his faith in the accuracy of the Jew.
But the true character of the tragedy was yet more hid
from the Roman Stoic than from the Jewish renegade.
No Christian witness has recorded these events. Had
he done so, he could only have indited a song of woe
like that of David at the fall of Saul and Jonathan.
Pontius Pilate, Antonius Felix, Albinus, and Gessius
Florus, were governors, who, by the providence of God,
exercised in succession over Judaea a severer and more
reckless tyranny than that of Verres in Sicily, suffi
cient to rouse the most patient people to rebellion.
Florus studiously stirred the Jews to rage and des
perate resistance, as the only expedient by which he
could escape from giving an account of his misdeeds.
But the whole preceding century of the Jewish state
* Tacitus' hist. v. 10, etc. The latter part of the fifth book is
unhappily lost.

JUDAS OF GAMALA. 20£
was a period of such increasing religious excitement,
that, even without the provocation of the Roman
tyranny, the Jewish zealots would have undertaken
the most desperate things, fanatically assured of suc
cess, and blind to the advent of the true Messiah.
The return from Babylon had occurred without the
coming of the Messiah. Daniel received, at the end of
the seventy years, that revelation which comforted his
people in connexion with other seven times seventy
years. These, if reckoned from the command of Cyrus
to restore Jerusalem, reached to the days in which
Herod the Idumean, son of Antipater, usurped the
royal dignity. His flatterers saw in him the an-
nointed. Those who thought more deeply awaited with
increasing impatience that hero, — who should deliver
Israel both from the Romans and from the Edomite
dynasty of criminals, — who should cast down Rome as
the mistress of the world, and set up in the place of
her monstrous kingdom that of the holy people and
of the true faith. When Cyrenius, in the sixth year
of our aera, completed the taxing in the name of
the heathen emperor Octavianus, and thereby impressed
upon the people the mark of slavery, Judas of Gamala
called Israel to arms. This was the first popular rising
to which the hope of Messiah's kingdom led. Josephus
is wrong in asserting that Judas the Gaulonite added a
fourth new party to the three old ones. (Jos. Bell. Jud.
ii. 12 [7.].) He only carried into act what all the
orthodox teachers had taught. These risings were the
necessary consequence of a consistent adherence to
the prevalent doctrine of the Pharisees. Where there
was no right consciousness of Israel's guilt and un-
worthiness, or conviction of the need for internal change

206 THE HOPE OF MESSIAH.
and regeneration, men could have no perception of the
true drift of prophecy or capacity to receive the true
deliverer. There was in such circumstances nothing
left for them, but either to betray and renounce all that
was sacred or honourable, or to hazard the conflict
with the oppressor. Every page of the Scriptures, every
verse of the Psalms appeared, in such a state of mind,
to be a call to such an enterprize, and a promise of
success. Why should not the heroic conduct of the
Maccabees be repeated, and again signally crowned
with victory \
Thus, to the carnally-minded, did the hope of Messiah
become a snare, and the rock of salvation a stone that
should grind them to powder. The rejection of the truth
cast them into the arms of the lie. The false prophets
and pretended deliverers, who, from Judas the Galilsean
downwards, had increased in number, zeal, and in
fluence, were, in most cases, not intentional deceivers,
but fanatics, filled with supposed inspiration partly
from their own fancy, partly from real diabolical
agency. And so sad was the confusion of good and
evil among those who had not received Christ, that the
very noblest and most pious were the most easily se
duced and became the wildest. The doctrine of the
Gaulonite was evidently of a very popular character.
Every new martyrdom fed the excitement. And the
:?ar party had its ranks filled, at first with the virtuous
and patriotic, but afterwards with the lawless, the sedi
tious, and the desperate.
At the head of the peace party were the Sadducees,
and Agrippa II., the last of the house of Herod, the
puppet Roman king of the north-eastern district. While
the Roman despotism stood in its strength, all persons,

OMENS OF MISFORTUNE. 207
of no fixed character, naturally ranged themselves
under it. But when the events of the war so unex
pectedly favoured the Jews, the multitude swam with
the stream, and it required no little firmness to counsel
abstinence from rebellion.
Under Felix, thousands followed a false prophet
into the wilderness, to see signs and wonders like those
of Moses, the liberator. They ascended the Mount of
Olives with that Egyptian who predicted that, at his
command, the bulwarks of Jerusalem, occupied by the
Romans, should fall down. They were cut down
without mercy by the pursuing troops of the governor.
(Joseph. Archseol. xx. 6; Acts xxi. 38.) About the
same time the inhabitants of Jerusalem were destined
to hear once more a messenger of the true Messiah in
the person of Paul. (Acts xxii. 1, &c.) But his oral
warning, and the strange omens of the approaching
destruction, were alike in vain.
Under Albinus, in the year of James's martyrdom,
the popular joy, the Feast of Tabernacles, was dis
turbed by the appearance of the wretched Jesus, the
son of Ananus, who, among the shouts of the vast
crowd in the courts of the temple, lifted up that rending
cry of woe over Jerusalem, which never intermitted
for seven years and six months, till the deadly bolt
struck him in the siege. In that year in which the war
broke out, at midnight of the Passover, the brazen
door of the temple opened itself; a sign, interpreted
by the deluded as a pledge that Jehovah was about to
come forth to fight for His people as in Egypt of old ;
but truly announcing the very opposite. And lastly,*
* Three signs of judgment at the three great seasons of blessing.
— Tr.

208 THE RISING OF THE JEWS.
when Pentecost arrived, the priests were alarmed by
nightly voices, crying, " Let us depart hence," and by
the noise of invisible beings forsaking the sanctuary, in
token that God had then founded another sanctuary to
which His protecting presence turned. (Joseph. Bell.
Jud. vi. 31. [vii. 12.]) We are warranted in regard
ing these events as more than accident, by the many
scriptural examples of the great truth, that extraordi
nary natural phenomena generally precede or accom
pany great acts of guilt or great misfortunes among men.
In the twelfth year of Nero, the sixty-sixth of our
sera, the people rose against its tormentor, Gessius
Florus. He retired with his army to Csesarea. The
remainder of the garrison at Jerusalem was traitorously
slaughtered on the Sabbath. This first reverse of the
Romans was the signal for a universal rising, for a war
both national and religious, which filled town and
country alike, wherever there was a mixed population,
with mutual massacre. (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 32, 33,
[18, 19.]) We may, from our recent experience of
contests between Greeks and Turks, Poles and Ger
mans, Hungarians and Sclavonians, form some idea
of that which ensued in the half-Syrian, half-Israelite
cities, like Caesarea. Where two nations in one land
hate each other as fire and water, where the authority
which should have kept peace is destroyed, and where,
by the shedding of blood, every diabolical passion is
roused, it must be a day of trouble for the disciples of
Christ. We have good cause to believe that the
Churches in Palestine suffered terribly. They could
side with no party. By the Jews, they were hated as
renegades; by the heathen,- as Jews. Which ever
party was victorious, they were the victims, in this civil

THEIR VICTORY OVER CESTIUS GALLUS. 2O9
war ; and needed, indeed, all the consolations of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. The Hebrews, on becoming
masters of a Greek city, vented their spite on the
Christians. And, where they were vanquished, and, as
occurred at Antioch, were forced by torture to partake
in heathen sacrifices (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 9. [21]),
the Christians shared their fate. When Josephus men
tions the Essenes, who were tortured by the Romans in
order that they should curse the name of the Lawgiver,
but who, unmoved, died with smiles and without a groan
(Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 12 [7]), we may well conceive
Christians to have been among the number of the
sufferers, these two parties being easily confounded by
the heathen.
The Procurator had given way. But the Governor
of Syria, who was over him, Cestius Gallus, advanced
with the twelfth legion and many auxiliaries upon the
capital. He planted his camp to the north of the
city, about the time of the Feast of Tabernacles.
The suburbs soon fell into his hands. He already
assaulted the eminence of the Temple. He could have
taken the city, especially if he had united himself with
the still numerous peace party in it. But he retired in
an inexplicable manner, as in our times Carlos V. from
the gates of Madrid. A panic must have seized those
accustomed to victory. In impassible mountain dis
tricts they were encompassed by the pursuing Jews,
and suffered great loss. And the triumphant rebels
returned with poeans into Jerusalem, while Cestius
Gallus completed his disgraceful retreat out of the
holy land. (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 39, 40 [24].)
This victory, at a time when the whole world bowed
before Rome, appeared as a miracle, and as a
p

210 THE FLIGHT OF THE CHRISTIANS.
pledge of complete success. The Sadducees, whose
heart was with the enemies of their country, did not
share in the joy. That which had kept them back
from the rebellion was not wisdom, but unbelief, in
difference, and selfishness. But every true Israelite
must have felt it most difficult to resist the persuasion
that the case of the rebels was good, and to refrain
from joining it. None but those enlightened in Christ,
could see through the delusion. Many of the higher
classes at this juncture left the city, as a sinking ship
(Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 40 [24] ; their interest being
bound up with those of Rome. And the flight of the
Christian congregation must have occurred, at the
latest, about this time. Eusebius relates that the most
faithful in the Church received by revelation an oracu
lar announcement, commanding the whole Christian
people to quit Jerusalem, and to seek a new abode in
a city of Peraea, called Pella. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 5.)
This is not at variance with the statement of Epipha-
nius, that the message was brought by an angel from
heaven (Epiph. de pond, et mens. c. 15); a statement
containing an allusion to the command which Joseph
received through an angel to flee with Mary and the
holy Child from Herod to Egypt, and also to that re
ceived by Lot to flee out of Sodom. Christ had com
manded His disciples to escape, when they should
see the abomination in the holy place and Jerusalem
surrounded with armies. The one began, when, under
Felix, assassination was perpetrated in the courts of
the temple ; and it was aggravated by the contests of
the zealots on the mountain of the Lord's house. The
other showed itself in the approach of Cestius Gallus.
His retreat rendered the emigration of the Christians

vespasian's expedition. 211
possible ; for when Titus, four years after, besieged Jeru
salem, there was hardly any room for escape. The right
eous, who by their presence, had held back the calamity,
disappeared from the city and from all Judaea.
The storm did not burst till the Christians had found
a refuge in a Syrian city, in the territory of Agrippa.
We do not know whether the faithful fled from Galilee
also. If they remained, they must have been exposed
to fresh sufferings ; first, persecution from the Jewish
tyrants ; then a share in the evils of war and conquest.
Meanwhile, those heads of the people were chosen in
Jerusalem who were invested with extraordinary powers
to conduct the war. Galilee, with its many fortresses,
and the whole of Palestine, were in the power of the
Jews and of the popular war party, who had reason to
expect aid from their brethren residing beyond the
Euphrates, and elsewhere. Rome felt the importance
of the contest. Nero sent, with three veteran legions,
Vespasian, grown old in war, the most victorious of
the imperial generals, conqueror of the Britons in
thirty battles. (Suetonius Vesp. 4.) During the two
summers of 67 and 68, he carried on the war in con
junction with his son Titus, and possessed himself of
all but Jerusalem. He wasted Galilee with fire and
sword, and reduced all its fortresses. On the storming
of Tarichaea by Titus, scenes of horror surrounded
the peaceful lake of Gennezaret. On its waters a work
of extermination was carried on against the fugitives.
Its shores were strewed with corpses. As by the Assy
rians of old, so once again the land was made desolate.
The capital alone stood, protected by its precipices
and lofty walls.
The fugitives crowded into the holy city. Among
p 2

212 SIEGE OF JERUSALEM BY TITUS.
them were many of the worst character. The danger
from without was equalled by the strife within, between-
the peace and war parties. As during the reign of
terror at Paris, those were threatened with death who
were suspected of sympathizing with the enemy. The
zealots played each the tyrant. In their contest they
filled the courts of the temple with slaughter. The wild
Idumeans, ready for every deed of violence, and after
wards Simon of Gerasa, the leader of the bands of
robbers, were called in to restore internal order.
Ananus, who had delivered James to death, Jesus,
also high priest, and Zacharias, son of Baruch, died
for their courageous resistance to the desecration of
the sanctuary. (Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 13, 18, 19 [iv. 5 ;
v. 1].)
Jerusalem was in no less distress than at the ap
proach of Sennacherib. Yet, by a providence as un
expected as the overthrow of the Assyrian army, the
Roman troops were commanded to halt. They retired,
for a second time. The news of Nero's death had
arrived. The civil war had broken out at home. Galba
had been proclaimed emperor in Spain and accepted in
Rome. Otho effected his murder ; and the legions in
Germany set up Vitellius as the rival of Otho. If other
legions were able to name an emperor, the victorious
troops in Palestine could follow the example. And, if
any general had deserved the imperial dignity, it was
Vespasian. He was proclaimed in Caesarea. Syria,
Egyptj the armies in Mcesia, acknowledged him. He
passed into Italy to contend with Vitellius. Titus
Went to order affairs in Egypt. Judiea breathed once
more. Her civil war continued. But by Rome she
was left in peace. Thus the hopes of the fanatics

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 213
were revived. God's long suffering did not bring them
to repentance.
Tacitus reckons this season of rest at a year. (Tacit.
Hist. v. 10.) Josephus reckons it not so long, till Titus
returned with fresh forces from Alexandria. With this
event began the last act of the tragedy. Myriads of
Jews had arrived to celebrate the Passover in the city
so marvellously spared. The legions encamped on the
north, east, and west. The whole city was soon en
compassed with a wall, which enclosed, as in a prison,
the multitudes who had arrived. The same feast which
witnessed the rejection of the Messiah, saw the fate of
his deluded nation. Every contrivance of war, aided
by new inventions, was applied. It was a frightful
contest between the pride and power of Rome, and the
reckless fanaticism of Judaea. On the one hand, the con
fidence of universal conquest ; on the other, reliance on
the God of Israel, as the protector of His sanctuary.
The defenders rejoiced in death, expecting a speedy
ressurrection at the coming of Messiah. They regarded
each new success of the enemy as only a new trial of
faith, on which the victory of their cause must follow.
And all this in spite of such ravages by hunger and
despair, among the congregated inhabitants and pil
grims, as have no parallel in history. (Joseph. Bell.
Jud. vi. 20, 21 [vii. 8].)
The outer wall was passed. The citadel Antonia,
on the north side of the temple, was stormed. The
upper city, on Mount Zion, yet stood, with its gigantic
towers, built by Herod I. The whole fury of the assault
was directed against the height of the temple, the posi
tion of the boldest defenders. And its sacred porches
were the scene of the concluding struggle. Then

214 THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.
arrived, in the midst of battle and burning, that great
day of sorrow, on which the daily sacrifice closed:
Titus stood with his soldiers on the desecrated spot.
The noise of weapons ceased. The eagles were planted.
And heathen sacrifices smoked on that height to the
honor of the gods of Rome. Titus entered, to behold
the interior of the temple, (ere it should be devoured
by the flames which he could not arrest,) on the ioth
of August, in the second year of Vespasian and the
seventieth of Christ, the very day on which the first
temple had been destroyed by the Chaldeans. (Joseph-.
Bell. Jud. vi. 26 — 32 [vii. 9 — 13].)
On the same day one of the false prophets had given
to the inhabitants the pretended command of God to
ascend the temple, ^where they should see the signs
of salvation. Crowds of women and children, having
obeyed what they regarded as the word of God,
perished in the flames. (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 29, 30
[vii. 11].) By the "signs of salvation " which they
looked for, they could have understood nothing else
than the appearance of their Deliverer in the clouds of
heaven, as seen by Daniel. This must have been their
last hope. The extreme possible term of the seventy
weeks had arrived. They expected till the last moment
the fulfilment of the vision vouchsafed to the prophet
of Susa. The last of the priests climbed a yet standing
wall of the sanctuary, whence, waiting for divine
rescue, they looked down on the scene of horror, till at
the end of five days they were constrained by starva
tion to descend into the arms of death. (Joseph. Bell.
Jud. vi. 33 [vii. 13].) On the other hand, when the
upper city was stormed, the bravest combatants, who,
true to their oath, rejected all offers of mercy, quitted,

IMPRESSION UPON THE CHRISTIANS. 215
as in folly, the refuge of the rock-like towers, in the
vain hope to escape by the south. (Joseph. Bell. Jud.
vi. 42, 43 [vii. 16].) The work of blood and des
truction was soon at an end. When Titus, after the
celebration of his victory, passed by, on his return from
Caesarea Philippi, melancholy filled his heart, on be
holding the stillness of desolation where the queen of
cities had stood. (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 15 [24].)
With what feelings then must the Christian congre
gations in Peraea and throughout the world have heard
of the fall of Jerusalem ? They had no part in the
joy of those who saw Vespasian and Titus enter trium
phant into Rome through the yet standing arch. As
Christ himself, descending from the Mount of Olives,
wept over the city lying before Him, at the thought of
its future fate, so no doubt did the faithful, on the oc
currence of that which He had foreseen, forget their
own wrongs, and pour out, not reproaches, but lamen
tations, while acknowledging the hand of the righteous
judge. Centuries after, some Churches in Palestine
were still used to read, in memory of the event, a book,
the prophecies of which, as to the fall of Jerusalem,
were ascribed to Peter. They read the " Revelation
of Peter " annually at their holy assemblies, on the day
of our Lord's death. (Sozomen Hist. Eccl. vii. 19.)
Their greatest day of mourning was devoted to the
remembrance of Jerusalem's destruction.*
* We cannot leave this description without remarking on the
self-destructive course of those who depart from God. The Jews,
who would not listen to the true prophets, were deluded by the false.
They who rejected the true Messiah expected the false. They were
hurried to destruction by the wicked counterpart of that which
should have saved them. They misinterpreted every sign. They

2l6 THE APOCALYPSE.
But the Christians saw in what occurred much more
than the mere judgment of God on His ancient people.
They saw also a prediction as to the future, taught as
they were, by the spirit of prophecy in the Church,
to interpret aright the indications afforded by passing
events. It was a time especially rich in novel and
important events, pregnant with meaning for the future.
The rapid succession of external occurrences was the
fit occasion for a corresponding prophetic development
in the Church. The divine exposition accompanied
the divine actings. The spirit of prophecy, embracing
beginning and end, deduced, from things present, inti
mations as to greater yet to come. The time had
arrived, at which, in conformity with our Lord's own
predictions while on earth, and with the light which
He vouchsafed through Paul, the Church should receive
from her Head in heaven a third great revelation of
futurity — the contents of the Apocalypse of John, or
rather of Jesus Christ.

This revelation is the property of the whole Church.
It was primarily addressed to the seven Churches in
Asia — Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis?
Philadelphia, and Laodicea, — because, after the fall of
drew strength in delusion from every respite given to them for
repentance. And the fall of that in which they trusted made their
ruin the more signal. Is the warning not needed now ? Are there
none in judicial blindness and peril now? Is there no Babylon
now, which, like Jerusalem of old, boasts itself impregnable, and
at the sudden fall of which the nations shall tremble ? Let all
Christendom be warned. — TR.

THE APOCALYPSE. 217
Jerusalem, and before the rise of Rome, these were the
centre of Christendom, the chief seat of Christian life,
the symbolic representation of the whole Church, and
the precursors of the whole in spiritual progress. And
it was given to John, because, after the death of James,
Peter, and Paul, the burden of the Church rested on
him who was reckoned with them one of the pillars of
the spiritual temple, and the exercise of the apostolic
office towards the widowed Churches devolved on him.
John had labored with Peter among the Israelites.
(Gal. ii. ii.) He had probably also accompanied Peter
to the capital of Heathenism ; for Tertullian tells us
(Tert. de Praeser. Haeres. c. 36), that he was cast by
the Roman persecutors into boiling oil — a mode of
torture which reminds us of the persecution under
Nero ; — and he seems to regard the event as contem- .
porary with the deaths of Peter and Paul. Miracu
lously preserved, John was banished to Patmos, where
he received the Apocalypse. But his banishment can
hardly have followed immediately on the events in
Rome. The selection of Patmos for his place of banish
ment would imply that John, after his Roman sufferings,
had gone to Ephesus, to take charge of the Churches
in Asia, and was there sentenced by a Roman governor
to banishment. After the death of the tyrant, he re
turned, as Clement of Alexandria informs us (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. iii. 23), to Ephesus.
One of the most difficult questions in the chronology
of the apostolic age regards the name of this tyrant
and the date of the Apocalypse. Shall we accept the
confident assertions of professed critics, that the Apo
calypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem
and under Galba ? Or shall we come lower down with

2l8 THE APOCALYPSE.
Irenseus, who says, "The Apocalypse was beheld, not
long ago, but almost on the border of our generation,"
i.e. about the end of the reign of Dotnitian ? (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. iii. 18.) These dates are more than twenty
years apart. However high is the authority of that
notice out of the second century, yet it is not impos
sible that even then an error may have crept into
tradition. And if a sure interpretation of the book itself
leads to a difficult conclusion, tradition must yield.
We are thus driven to consider its interpretation.
But we shall not here undertake an exposition of its
predictions. We shall confine ourselves to the his
torical position of the Apocalypse ; and use it, as a help
to inquiry, not into the future, but into the past.
We hear it asserted by a number of professed ex
pounders, that the description of Babylon in the Apo
calypse refers to heathen Rome, which Peter had
already styled Babylon ; and that Nero was the beast
out of the pit, which was, and is not, and yet is.
Others, again, have regarded the fall of Jerusalem as
the chief subject of the book, and fancied that they
had discovered a poetical description of the Jewish
war in its very details. And others, endeavouring to
combine the two views, haye applied the first half to
Jerusalem, the second to Rome ; so that the whole shall
describe the victory of Christianity over both Judaism
and Heathenism. And really there are points of simi
larity discoverable, which show that, in these more or
less rationalistic views, there may be a measure of
subordinate truth. Yet they all contain one capital
error, the same as that which has occasioned endless
contention -in the exposition of the prophetic books of
the Old Testament. Take for an example the Mes-

THE APOCALYPSE. 219
sianic Psalms. Their reference to David and Solomon
is so clear, that, on the decay of spiritual life and pro
phetic light in the Church, the opinion might well arise
among theologians, that these Psalms were only poetic
inflated descriptions of cotemporary kings and their
deeds, not prophecies as to Christ. Such a theory, how
ever, overlooks the fact, that these kings were them
selves precursors of Christ — anointed ones of God —
saviours for the people — men in whose history that of
the future deliverer and king was prefigured. Even
the better class of theologians have sometimes forgotten
that the Spirit of God has but one object of vision and
discourse worthy of Himself, namely — Christ and His
Church — first, in conflict and suffering, then in victory.
Prophecy always reaches through to the perfect thing.
On no other ground can it be defended from the charge
of exaggeration. And whoever will apprehend the
words of prophecy truly and fully, must be carried
through temporary fulfilments to their great final sub
ject, and led into the Messianic interpretation.
But as Christ has His type, so has Antichrist . As
the way is prepared for the kingdom of God, so also
for the judgment of the world. As the good approaches
its full development, so also the evil. The errors and
conflicts of the last time have appeared typically in
former times. Of this we have constant examples in
considering the old Testament prophecies. The spirit
of prophecy attaches revelation regarding the end of
all things to the existing circumstances of every time.
And as the Holy Spirit is the same in all dispensations,
the prophecies of the New Testament have in this
respect the same character as those of the Old. The
right principles of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy

220 THE APOCALYPSE.
are those to which a faithful investigation of fulfilled
prophecy conducts us.
On this principle, therefore, the Apocalypse has much
larger objects than the events in the time of Nero and
his successors. Those err greatly who regard the fall
of Jerusalem, and a Roman emperor, as the final objects
of the visions. The contemporaneous events were not
the end in view, but the starting point of the prophetic
discourse — the foreground, so to speak, of the picture,
by which the eye might be led to the more distant
objects. The only things to which the words of the
Apocalypse can be applied without exaggeration had
not yet appeared. The last conflict was yet future.
Yet that time was filled with pre-indications of the end.
The six years between Nero's persecution and Jeru
salem's fall were, both in and out of the Church, a
striking prelude of the end. The experiences of John
and his cotemporaries were shadows of the great
drama with which this dispensation shall close. There
fore were the hearts of men so filled with the nearness
of the end. Then were present many of those conditions
which might have straightway evoked the consumma
tion. And the Christians then needed exactly that
light and comfort which is given in the Apocalypse.
For although the meaning of this greatest of all
prophecies can be exhausted by nothing less than the
events which shall conclude this dispensation, and by
the kingdom to come, yet the Apocalypse is written
for all intervening times also of the Church militant.
The man of sin was not yet seen in his full form. Yet
the martyrs under Decius or Diocletian rightly found
their comfort in the predictions regarding the destruction
of the beast. Babylon had not yet fully appeared, as

THE APOCALYPSE. 221
John saw her. Yet the witnesses who, since the
middle ages, have testified against the corruption of the
Church, have been rightly comforted in their sufferings
by the predictions of Babylon's fall, and the coming of
the New Jerusalem. That which is written as to the
complete apostasy, describes also every successive stage
of its rise. There is no other principle but this, on
which to recognize the historical position of the
Apocalypse, without fairing into the dry and shallow
exposition of the rationalists. Thus alone can we at
once estimate the unexhausted depths of prophecy, and
yet employ it as a glass in which to find the circum
stances and feelings of those primitive times historically
reflected. While the ancient city of God fell, and God hid his
face from her, Christ counted the seven Churches of Asia
worthy, as the metropolis of the new divine polity, to
receive the Apocalypse. (Rev. i. 4.) John said to
the faithful, in reference to the forfeited honor of the
ancient people, " He hath made us kings and priests."
(Rev. i. 6.) As the earthly sanctuary disappeared, a
heavenly one was opened to John, in which the seven
golden candlesticks stand, which are the seven Churches.
(Rev. i. 12, 20.) The Christian Church therefore is
this heavenly sanctuary. The Aaronic priesthood had
died out. In its place appeared Christ in priestly gar
ments, as the minister of the higher sanctuary. (Rev. i.
13.) And the vision accorded with that description of
His office, which, in the prospect of the change, had
been already given in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Were nothing more said, this first chapter of the
Apocalypse would be proof sufficient that, even in the
primary sense of the book, Jerusalem, Zion, the temple.

222 THE APOCALYPSE.
the tribes of Israel, are no longer to be understood in
the letter. All these already belonged to the past. The
earthly Jerusalem had fallen, virtually, or in fact. The
earthly temple had no more place in Christendom. Old
Testament seers had indeed spoken of the rebuilding of
the earthly city of God. But of this the Apocalypse says
not a word. And it has as little to do with the destruc
tion as with the rebuilding of the earthly Zion. It is
exclusively devoted to the distinct Church of Christ and
her heavenly destiny. It contains nothing as to the
futurity of the Jews. The Jews have their Apocalypse
in Ezekiel and the other prophets of the old covenant.
This will serve to rescue the Apocalypse from the
charge of containing nothing but narrow-minded Jewish
ideas. The charge originates in the unspiritual, literal,
unworthy exegesis of those who bring it.
The book of the Revelation does not constitute a
continuous chronicle of the future, but seems to con
tain various cycles of visions, of which each embraces
more or less, under diversified forms, the course of those
events by which this dispensation is to be wound up,
seen from different points of view.
The contents of the seven seals (Rev. vi. i — viii. i)
are a complete picture of the Christian age of the world,
full of troubles, ending in judgment and deliverance.
But they also form a picture of the time then being, in its
eventful features — conquest — civil war — famine — pes
tilence, as in the four first seals — the cry of the souls
for vengeance under the fifth, such as that under the
persecution by Nero— despair at the opening of the
sixth, such as that of the Jewish war — the sealing of
the 144,000, such as that of the faithful ere Jerusalem
was destroyed (Rev. vii. 1 — 8)— the appearance of the

THE APOCALYPSE. 223
great company, as in the subsequent spread of the
Gospel. (Rev. vii. 9 — 17 J Yet Origen is in the right
in understanding the "twelve tribes" as those of the
spiritual Israel. And, if so, then we must seek the
proper object of this vision of the tribes, not at the com
mencement of the Christian dispensation, when those
spiritual tribes, i.e. the twelve-foldness of the Christian
Church, had not been fully developed, but at the end.
The seven trumpets form a second series of visions,
and the seven vials a third. The sounding of the
trumpets (Rev. viii. 2 — xi. 15) is introduced by the
cessation of the intercession at the heavenly altar, and
its conversion into judgment. (Rev. viii. 5.) To this
the cessation of the daily worship at Jerusalem was
analogous. But the event thus seen in vision, is a
much higher and a yet future thing. The succeeding
visions remind us of the Egyptian plagues, of the
assaults of Roman legions, and Parthian horse. (Rev.
viii. 7 — ix. 21.) But neither the events in the days of
Moses, nor the wars in the time of John, form the true
goal of the prophecy. It evidently^points symbolically
to things then future. And the same remarks apply to
the vials. (Rev. xvi..) Earthly plagues shadow forth
throughout spiritual judgments.
It were a grievous mistake to understand, in a mere
literal sense, the measuring of the temple (Rev. xi. 1, 2)
— the sparing of the internal and the treading down of
the external ; and, to conclude, that the Jewish temple
was then not yet destroyed, and that John foretold that
it could not be ;so. This were to make John directly
contradict Christ, and speak as one of those false pro
phets, who fed the fond hopes of the Jews. The very
passage on which such a wrong notion is founded affords

224 THE APOCALPYSE.
its contradiction. It forces us to look at the spiritual
temple which Christ promised to raise up instead of
that made with hands. It foretells that, in contrast to
the temple of Solomon, and its then past or impending
fall, the spiritual sanctuary should, while its carnal
courts were destroyed, be itself eternally preserved.
We here read, for the first time, of that great city
(Rev. xi. 8), which is afterwards fully described under
the name of Babylon. The city ultimately indicated
must be the same throughout. It cannot be regarded
as at one time Jerusalem, at another Rome. Granting
that at, and long after the date of the Apocalypse,
these two temporary applications were made, yet, with
Christians of the present day, there can be no doubt
that the spirit of prophecy pointed to a third and yet
greater object. A third city {civitas) was destined to
appear, which should unite in itself all the evil cha
racters of apostate Jerusalem, of heathen Rome, of
ancient Babylon, and of Tyre ; a city in which Christ
should be spiritually crucified (Rev. xi. 8), and the last
witnesses slain, as Peter and Paul had been at Rome,
after finishing their testimony, and as James, at Jeru
salem, before its fall. This frightful mystery was hidden
from the view of Christian antiquity. And when it first
came dimly into view, it was perverted to justify ex
clusive reproaches against the Roman Church. Not the
Roman, as distinct from Protestant Churches, but the
whole of Christendom, the great edifice of God, becomes,
in so far as it breaks Christ's covenant, resists His
ways, and quenches His life, Babylon the Great.
It was easier to guess the meaning of the two follow
ing visions. (Rev. xii. i— 17.) The woman, clothed with
the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, fleeing from

THE APOCALYPSE. 225
her persecutor into the place prepared for her of God
in the wilderness (Rev. xii., xiii.), reminded all of the
Church escaping from Jerusalem to Peraea. Yet this
event itself was, like the flight of Moses or Elias, only a
type. No less plainly did the beast out of the sea indicate
the persecution by Nero. The deeds of Caius or Nero
corresponded in almost every particular with the pic
ture. (Rev. xiii. i — 10.) Nevertheless they were but
harbingers of the true future fulfilment. This beast
was similar to the fourth of Daniel, under which is
justly understood the Roman empire. Satan appeared
really to have given his power and throne to the Roman
Emperor (Rev. xiii. 2), in order to set him up as an
Anti-Messiah, as the truculent caricature and rival of
the Son of the Highest, to whom the Father has given
the kingdom. His exterminating war against the
saints — his adoration by all this earth's inhabitants —
the punishment of death for all who would not worship
the image of the ruler, are at once historical facts from
the past, and prophetic indications for the future. The
mark of Antichrist, without which no one might buy
or sell, probably found its analogy in the time of the
Caesars. Nor is the idea to be rejected, that the false
prophet (Rev. xiii. 11), who sustains Antichrist, found
his counterpart in heathen priests and magicians, who
incited to the persecution of the Christians, as at a
later period Macrianus did the Emperor Valerian, or as
at a former Elymas (Acts xiii. 8) and Simon may have
acted. In such circumstances it was not wonderful
that for centuries nqthing else than the heathen empire
of Rome was understood under the beast. To this
interpretation Irenaeus already pointed, in reckoning
"Lateinos" among the conjectural names of Antichrist.

226 THE APOCALYPSE.
This interpretation has also been the favourite one
among Roman Catholic theologians, and undoubtedly
derives fresh probability from the seventeenth chapter.
In this chapter Babylon appears as the city reigning
on seven hills over the kings of the earth (Rev. xvii.
9 — 18), — an exact description of ancient Rome. What
could the beast be, which carried the woman, but the
imperial dynasty, especially considering that Rome
and the dynasty were still distinguished by the sub
sistence of the republican forms and titles under des
potism. The beast had seven heads ; and these " are
seven kings ; five are fallen, one is, and the other is
not yet." (Rev. xvii. 10.) The usual interpretation
makes the five the rulers of the Augustan house, —
Octavian, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero. Under
Nero's successor the Apocalypse may have been written.
" The beast, which was, and is not, he is the eighth, and
is of the seven, and goeth into perdition," (Rev. xvii.
ii,) has been applied to the popular opinion, that
Nero was not really dead, but should return. And
what follows — " The ten horns are ten kings, who have
not yet received power, but receive power as kings one
hour with the beast " (Rev. xvii. 12), has been held to
exhibit the division of the Roman empire, as the fourth
monarchy of Daniel, first into two, and then into ten.
We cannot shut our eyes to the analogy between the
prophecy and the tradition as to Nero. It was as
tonishing that the human race bore his tyranny for
fourteen years, and still more so, that a man, stained
with every vice, and guilty of matricide, exercised a
spell over men's spirits, which did not cease even with
his shameful death. It was certainly a strange kind of
love which decked his grave with flowers (Sueton.

THE APOCALYPSE. 227
Nero, 57), and an inexplicable power which lay in the
remembrance of him. Two pretended Neros availed
themselves of the popular belief, by aspiring to supreme
power at the head of armed adherents. Nay, the per
suasion actually gained ground, and for three hundred
years survived among the Christians, that Nero should
appear again as the last Antichrist. But all this should
not induce us to class the prophecy itself with these
extravagant ideas. The truth, which lies under these
superstitious fancies is this, that the author of all evil
had succeeded to elevate to the highest dignity on
earth, and use for his purposes, in the person of Nero,
the most perfect development of evil which had down
to that time been seen. If the last Antichrist is to be
a person, he could not have had a worthier forerunner.
It is of the essence of the antichristian power, that it
rises, falls, seems extinct, and then, to the horror of
some, to the joy of others, to the astonishment of all,
revives ; repeating this alteration between apparent
death and power of life, until its last embodiment.
The prophecy points to this. We cannot tell in what
exact form it shall yet be fulfilled. But the popular
tradition was certainly a shadow of its import. And
this is no solitary instance of tradition appearing as the
other self {Doppelganger) of prophecy, a faint retro-
fleeted distorted image of the coming reality, occa
sioned by a too literal interpretation of the word of
prophecy. Thus they greatly err who suppose that the sixth
head was Galba or Vespasian, and the seventh Nero
returning from the Parthians. They put the revelation
of Jesus Christ on a level with a fanatical political
pamphlet. The horizon of prophecy is greater. It
Q 2

228 THE APOCALYPSE.
embraces the whole purpose of God. And we may say
with probability, that the five heads which were fallen
were those heathen powers which of old had oppressed
Israel,1 the people of God, viz., Egypt, Assur, Baby
lon, Persia, and Syria, the sixth head being the Roman
Empire. The picture of Babylon the great presents features
which remind the reader of Jerusalem rather than
of Rome.
Jerusalem alone, not heathen Rome, is, properly
speaking, the covenant-breaker and adulteress. To
her Christ had said, that the blood of all the prophets
should be required of her. (Rev. xviii. 24.) One can
say of corrupted Judaism, that it had been first carried
and then destroyed by the beast, the Roman imperial
power. (Rev. xvii. 1, 13, 16, 17.) And, lastly, the
application of the beast to the Idumean reigning family,.
with its seven kings, from Herod I. to Agrippa II., has
also a measure of veri-similitude.*
John himself, and the contemporary Christian gene
ration, did not know what phases the mystery of ini
quity, then in operation, should pass through, till it
should attain its perfect and final stamp. But all the
buddings of the evil, then visible, were recognized by
his prophetic glance. And, as all the prophecies and:
types, and the whole phraseology of the Old Testa
ment are so woven up into the Apocalypse, that a right
understanding of all other Scripture is indispensable
to our finding the values of the purely biblical for
mulae in which it is expressed, so are all the prophetic-
* The view mentioned above was proposed by Herder and
Ziillig.

s. John's authorship. 229
¦indications of Providence, at the date of its composi
tion, pointed at by it, as divine announcements and
aspects of one great future consummation.
We infer from all this, that it is impossible,
from the Apocalypse itself, to determine its date.
While it is possible that it was written before a.d. 70,
it is no less so that it was given under Domitian in the -
year of his persecution, a.d. 95. Yet we think it more
likely that it was composed not long after those
judgments on Judaea, from which Christendom might
learn what it had to expect, should it be guilty of the
same unfaithfulness as God's ancient people; and
that the time when the earthly Jerusalem was over
thrown was that at which the heavenly descended in
vision before John.
We now no longer need to prove that the Apocalypse
was received and written by John. It were enough
for our purpose, that, according to the theory of those
who would still question this, the author wishes to be
regarded as John. But, in addition to the consen
tient testimony of the Church, which has adopted the
Apocalypse into the Canon, we have especial state
ments as to its authenticity, in Papias and Justin
Martyr, which have been in later years fully noticed.
Yet this book has had the remarkable, nay, the pecu
liar fate, of having been at first universally recognized
as canonical, and thereafter called in question, although
only in one part of the Church, and for a limited time.
For it is as well authenticated as any apostolic work.
It was the richest source of comfort and hope under
persecution. And there must have been a sad decay
of prophetic light and spiritual understanding, a sad
confusion of ideas, and darkening of hope, in the saints,

230 S. JOHN'S AUTHORSHIP.
before men could come to doubt its authenticity.
Origen himself held fast by it. His follower, Dionysius
of Alexandria, was the originator of those suspicions,.
which affected Eusebius and the Greek-Oriental
Churches. The doubts of these Churches, for a century
after the cessation of the persecutions, instead of being
a testimony against the Apocalypse, only afford a test
of their own decay.
We know enough of the objections raised by Diony
sius,* to see that they were the mere results of a sub
jective criticism, influenced by a theology bereft of pro
phetic intelligence. The chief difficulty urged by all
objectors," down to the present time, lies in the great
dissimilarity of the book from John's own Gospel. And
nothing but the right apprehension of the scope of both
compositions can strengthen us in the conviction that
they were written by one man. If, after the example
of most modern theologians, whether yet wavering or
already subverted, the Apocalypse, is handled with
rude and literal materialism, and the Gospel with cor
responding idealistic sublimation, — the one as the mere
work of Jewish fabulism, the other as the mere
expression of dreamy spiritualism, — then indeed are
the two irreconciliable, and the work, neither of one
Spirit, nor of one man.
Dionysius was the first who ascribed the book to
another, John the Presbyter. Thus he sought to
escape out of the difficulty, on the one hand, of ac
knowledging the apostolic origin of a book so strange
to him, and on the other, of questioning its authority in
the face of the traditional consent of the Church.
* Eusebiushis. eccl. vii. 25.

the seven churches. 231
Papias mentions this "Elder " John. The Apostolical
Constitutions name him as the first bishop set in Ephe
sus by the Apostle John. And there were the graves
of two Johns at Ephesus. Yet the hypothesis is as
groundless as the modern one in regard to the Evan
gelist, John Mark. None but an Apostle could occupy
the position assumed by the author of the Apocalypse
toward the seven Churches and their bishops.
These were the most prominent, but not the only
Churches in the west of Asia Minor. Besides Laodicea,
we know from Paul's Epistles, two adjacent Churches,
Colossae and Hierapolis. Tralles and Magnesia, to
which Ignatius wrote, lie in the same district. Bithynia
was, at the end of the period of John, that province of
the empire which was most pervaded by Christianity.
Paul had founded the Church in these districts. The
congregation at Ephesus was his work. Those surround
ing it were gathered by his disciples. The seven
Churches were the work of Paul as much as those in
Corinth and all Achaia. And the preponderance of the
Greek element in them is also established by the first
Epistle of Peter. Ten years did not elapse after the
departure of Paul from Miletus, till John took the care
of them.
From this we may infer the relation of John to the
work of his predecessor. He built further, on that
same foundation which Paul had laid as a wise master-
builder. Of this the Apocalypse contains pregnant
proof. So far from erecting a system opposed to that
of Paul, or favoring a return to Judaism, its leading
prophetic ideas are in perfect harmony with the Epistle
to the Ephesians and Paul's other writings. In many
respects they take up the substance and drift of the

2 32 THE SENEN CHURCHES.
Epistle to the Hebrews. If the visions which Paul received
had been written and handed down to us, we might
probably find this correspondence extending even to
the form of the communications. Nothing but a grossly
and radically one-sided interpretation can bring the
two compositions into conflict. Luther is inexcusable,
in being offended at the "judgment according to works"
in the Apocalypse. Not only Paul, but our Lord him
self in the Gospels, teaches the very same. The divine
dignity of Christ, the heavenly destination of the Church,
the washing away of sin by the blood of the Saviour,
are fundamental truths common to Paul's writings and
the Apocalypse. Where these are acknowledged, there
is an end, both of privilege from earthly descent, and
of merit by works. The whole Old Testament nomen
clature for the Church in the Apocalypse is based on
the typical, not the literal, import of the words em
ployed, and thereby proves the absence of all Judaizing,
either in the writer or in those addressed.
The seven Epistles of Christ (Rev. ii. iii.) point out
briefly the dangers and corruptions, to which the
Churches were exposed ; and which sprang partly from
heathen, partly from Jewish, sources. Satan's throne,
synagogue, and depths, indicate a three- fold opposition,
heathen, Jewish, and heretical. Pergamos appears to
have been the seat of a temporal power, which the
adversary employed against the Church. It was the
residence of the Roman proconsul ruling over the
province of Asia. (Rev. ii. 13.) The synagogue was the
chief instigator of outward persecution, by insinuating
its representations into the ears of the heathen govern
ments. The members of the synagogue no longer
deserved the honourable name of " Jews " which they

HERETICS WITHIN THE SEVEN CHURCHES. 233
bore. (Rev.ii. 9. — iii. 9.) The Church was also internally
troubled by those emissaries of Judaism who had every
where dogged the steps of Paul. In Corinth they
succeeded with one portion of the flock. In Ephesus
they failed : their attack was broken, and their influence
over that part of Christendom was destroyed, by the
faithfulness of the Bishop, the shield of the flock. If
Timothy was no longer at the head of that Church,
there must have been another of Paul's disciples, one
of the elders of Ephesus, elevated to be the chief shep
herd, bishop, or angel, to whom the words are ad
dressed, " Thou hast tried them, which say they are
Apostles, and are not, but do lie." (Rev. ii. 2.) It is
not likely that these deceivers came with the stern
demands of Pharisaic-Judaism. They, or rather
Satan, who incited them, had more to hope from an
Essene legalism, to which the Church at Colossae had
been actually seduced, and that at Ephesus was pro
bably tempted.*
But Ephesus was also invaded by errors of a very
different kind. We distinctly recognise in the seven
* Without at all questioning this purely historical application of
Satan's throne, synagogue, and depths, their ultimate application
must be to evils springing up in the Church itself. The Church is
God's synagogue and dwelling ; her government God's throne; her
doctrine and rites God's depths, — all three divine in origin and
character. The synagogue, throne, dwelling, and depths of Satan,
are not external things of Satanic origin, but divine things made
Satanic by the craft of Satan and the wickedness of man ; ecclesi
astical bodies, ordinances, doctrines, and rites, perverted to Satan's
ends. The depths are really depths, not empty absurdities. Ori
ginally depths of God, they become depths of Satan. The words
" as they speak " imply, not that they profess to be depths of Satan,
but that they claim, and that justly, to be depths. — Tr.

234 THE NICOLAITANS.
Epistles the heathen form of corruption which Paul had
so clearly described beforehand. The Nicolaitans, the
followers of the doctrine of Balaam, and the disci
ples of the prophetess Jezebel (Rev. ii. 6, 14 — 16, 20-r-
25), come all under one category. They are but
various and not very diverse forms of that gnostic law
lessness against which Peter also directed his second
Epistle. The existence of such dangers among the
seven Churches, are a fresh proof of their predominant
Greek and Pauline character. There only, where
Paul's doctrine was received, could the wicked attempt
be made, to convert it into Antinomianism. Balaam,
the seer of heathen origin — Jezebel, the heathen se
ducer and persecutor of God'sservants, — were the fittest
types of this error. As Balak, unsuccessful in open
war against Israel, was counselled by Balaam to seduce
them by the daughters of Moab, so did the enemy, after
failing by persecution, attempt by heretics to seduce
the faithful into feasting on heathen sacrifices, and into
heathen impurity. On this ground Peter and Jude
compared the depraved Gnostics with Balaam. (2 Pet.
ii. 15 ; Jude 11.) The Nicolaitans must have been
akin to them, though not identical. The erroneous
idea, that Nicolaus is but the translation of Balaam, is
not supported even by linguistic criticism. Pergamos
had both errors in it at once. (Rev. ii. 14, 15.) The
tradition is not a groundless one, which derives this
sect from Nicolaus, the proselyte of Antioch, the
seventh of the first deacons. The tendency of old was,.
to venerate as saints all whose names occur in the New
Testament; to think and tell the best of them ; even in
a multitude of fables. Therefore if, in this case, the
fathers have ventured to characterize, as the author of

THE NICOLAITANS. 235
a destructive heresy, one of the men whom we should
expect to find full of faith and of the Holy Ghost (Acts
vi. 3) ; nay, to class him with Judas the traitor ; we can
hardly conceive this to be without foundation in fact.
Irenaeus and Epiphanius accuse Nicolaus of teaching
that we may without scruple gratify our lusts, as this
does not injure the Spirit. Clement of Alexandria
modifies this, by saying, that, although such was the
principle of the Nicolaitans, it arose from a misunder
standing of their teacher's doctrine ; whose separation
from his wife, and exhortation to " abuse the flesh " in
the spirit of severe abstinence was afterwards inter
preted into heathen license. These statements, both
probable, can be easily reconciled, by assuming, that
among the Nicolaitans that natural, though revolting,
transition took place, from a strict ascetic mortification,
which was no true holiness, to reckless licentiousness ;
a warning experience, which has, alas, been too often
repeated. Lastly, as to Jezebel, we cannot now deter
mine whether that name signifies an individual or a
crowd of evil doers. But, that false gnosis was the
form of delusion, appears from the words " who have
not known the depths of Satan, as they speak." The
heretics would no more call their mysteries depths of
Satan than the Jews their synagogue a school of Satan.
The emphasis is to be laid on the technical expression
of the heretics " have not known," here quoted as the
manner of their speech. They taught a gnosis, a deep-
or esoteric doctrine, which led to pollution and idolatry.
And this fact tends to support the so often assailed
Epistles of Peter (2d) and Jude, as being of like date
with the Apocalypse.*
* See previous note. We do not doubt that Jezebel was a per-

236 THE EPISTLE OF S, JUDE.
The Epistle of Jude comes to be noticed here, as a
later composition than the second of Peter. The author
sees that evil, already broken out, which Peter had
predicted ; and he points back to the previous apostolic
warnings. (Jude 17.) Even the ancients did not know
what Church he addressed. He was not an Apostle, but
the youngest of Christ's brethren, for he calls himself
brother of the departed James. (Jude 1.) He appears
to have had an ecclesiastical office in Palestine, and to
have written his Epistle thence at an advanced age.
His grandchildren were discovered by Domitian, when,
with an evil purpose, he instituted a search for
David's descendants. When they were brought before
him, he learned that they sustained themselves by the
produce of a small piece of land. He saw, from the
hardness of their hands, how harmless they were, and
let them return home. So says Hegesippus. (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. iii. 19, 20.)

John, returned from banishment, resided in- Ephesus
son, and that she typified a system, of spell-like power to corrupt, in
the Christian Church. The Church, the spouse of Christ the pro
phet like Moses, is the prophetess in His name. But she calltth
herself a. prophetess, when she sets up her own authority and name.
The double sin, of disclaiming Christ's authority, and of calling
that authority her own, has been committed by the Church, in her
diverse parts. As, in the former case, she virtually forsakes her
children, so, in the latter case, she cannot fail to mislead them ; to
generate death ; and to call down judgment. But the " other
burden " of [this judgment through Antichrist shall not be laid on
those, who stand apart from such ways, and hold fast what they
have, till Christ shall visit His Church with revival, to prepare her
for His own return. — Tr.

S. JOHN S POSITION AFTER A.D. 70. 237
again, and thence governed the Churches in Asia till
his death. The labors of John in his old age have
been deeply impressed on the memory of the faithful.
No fact of that time is better established, than that the
Churches of Asia Minor enjoyed the guidance of John
until the end of the first century. And the effect of
this was so durable, as to efface the remembrance of
Paul as their founder. The whole style of these
Churches in the second century was much more Johan-
nite than Pauline. John, the last holder of the apostolic
office, did not regard it as his calling, to haste, like
Paul, to those lands where Christ had not yet been
named. He found suitable work within the Church,
not in laying again the foundation, but in building
on it ; not in extending the limits of the Church, but
in bringing it nearer to perfection. Yet much was also
done for the spreading of Christianity. The Bishop of
every fresh Church cared for the propagation of the
truth in his province. John himself did build new
Churches in Asia. But his continual abode in those
parts shews that he had a special work, among the ex
isting Churches there, which he could not devolve on
another. It was impossible to care alike immediately
for all metropolitan seats. He confined himself within
a narrow sphere, in order there to lead up the higher.
The progress of the seven churches and their depend
encies in knowledge and holiness wrought mediately
on all Christendom. All other Churches tended to
follow the pattern afforded to them by these seven.
Thus the place of John was, more than that of Peter
or Paul, like that of a chief shepherd. He became, to
the Greek Church, what James had been to the Chris
tians in Judaea. He was conceived of and represented

238 s, John's position.
in after times as the high priest of the Christians. He
is said to have worn the Petalon, the golden crown with
which the Jewish high Priest went into the holiest.
This extraordinary assertion by Polycrates of Ephesus
(Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24), is not to be taken literally.
But it is a proof of his high dignity. Both in his
relation to the Christian priesthood under him, and in
reference to the fact, that the heavenly sanctuary had
been opened to him in the Apocalypse as to no other,
he might well be called a Christian High Priest.*
Who can doubt, that the Churches of Asia, by receiving
the Apocalypse, and by the constant personal labors of
John, were really brought mightily forward ? Of this
John's later writings are proof sufficient, — intended first
for those Churches, and mediately for the whole. Thus
far they afford historical information as to the state of
the Church at that time.
We say this chiefly as to the first, the canonical and
* No bishop is high priest in the Church oecumenic. Each is so,
only in reference to the clergy of his own diocese. Therefore this
designation of John, as a high priest cecumenic, rests, not on his
supposed Ephesian episcopate, but on his apostleship, which, while
he condescended to the special care of certain Churches, continued
valid for all. But, properly speaking, no Apostle, no man on
earth, none but The Man in heaven, is high priest of God in the
whole Church. Apostles are only priests under Him, who carry
out His catholic high priesthood. But it is a catholic high priest
hood which they carry out. Divide their labors as they may, each
is an apostle to the whole Church, while each bishop is only to his
own diocese. The aggregate of bishops cannot constitute an
apostolate ; for universal jurisdiction, which resides in each Apostle,
resides in no one of them. The office of Apostle is the standing
testimony to another, as the sole and absent High Priest ; whereas
the exaggeration of a bishop or bishops to universal rule, is the
obliteration of that testimony, and sanctions the sin of Jezebel. — Tk.

s. John's first epistle. 239
encyclical Epistle of John. The condition of spiritual
progress and prosperity therein depicted bears espe
cially on the Churches of Asia, and yet more directly
on that of Ephesus, formerly blamed for forsaking that
first love (Rev. ii. 4), the maintenance of which is
the great topic of the Epistle.
The mistake of Augustine and other Latins, in calling
this the Epistle " to the Parthians," is one, the origin
of which has been discovered. The second Epistle
had the superscription " to the virgins " {vpbg irapBivovo)
This was read wrong, and adopted as a subscription
to the first.
The clearest historical passage of the Epistle is in
the second chapter ( 1 John ii. 18). It evidently alludes
to the predictions of Paul, regarding the coming
apostasy, the revelation of the man of sin, and the
rise of deceivers from among the Christian teachers,
and also to his warnings to the Ephesian elders, and
to Timothy. The " last time " had not come, when
Paul wrote. But when John did, this last condition,
required for the coming of the end, had appeared.
False teachers had sprung up, in the bosom of the
Church, to prepare the way of Antichrist. The spirit
of Antichrist was already in the world — an entirely
new element in the contest recorded by history.
But those heretics, who had sought a footing in the
Church, had been already expelled from it. At the date
of the Apocalypse, the Nicolaitans and other such pro
pagators of evil were still suffered in certain Churches.
When Jude wrote, they still rioted in the love-feasts or
agapae. (Jude 12.) But, ere John wrote this Epistle,
the separation was completed, and that, not by outward
force, but through the victory with which the testimony for

240 THE HERETICS EXPELLED.
the truth, the fidelity of the shepherds, and the spiritual
discipline of John, had been crowned. The unclean
could not stand before Christ's presence and power in
the Church. Neither could they longer conceal them
selves. The Church was purged of them. On the
other hand, she was established in the possession of
her anointing. She was truly that Holy organising in
the various members of which the Holy Spirit made
known his presence. She grew, in knowledge and in
love, by the co-operation of the gifts and ministries.
That which Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, had seen
in spirit, hoped, and prayed for, was now realized to a
greater extent than it had been during his life. A
mighty stride had been made, in development, and in
preparation for Christ's return.
Neither does the Epistle leave us in the dark as to the
nature of the above false doctrines. It is from begin
ning to end a preservative against and cure of false
gnosis. The Gnostics were indeed expelled ; but their
adherents were numerous. " They speak of the world,
therefore the world heareth them." (1 John iv. 5.) And
the danger for the Church was not past : for every un
faithfulness as to sanctification induced a conscious or
unconscious inclination to Gnosticism. Much in the
Epistle which looks like mere abstract assertion, really
had relation to a then present leaven of heresy. John had
no longer occasion to contend against adherence to the
law of Moses. But he had need to warn against a con
cealed abjuration of the law of Christ. The leading idea
of his Epistle has been rightly called " the unity of re
ligion and morality." It was intended as a preservative
against that Gnosticism of the second century, which
best explains the drift, and vindicates the application, of

S. JOHNS WITNESS AGAINST THE GNOSTICS. 24 1
this Epistle. John speaks of those who say that they
have fellowship with God, and walk in darkness, yet
profess to have no sin. He calls him a liar, who pro
fesses to know Christ, and yet does not keep His com
mandments, or who professes to be in the light, and
hates his brother. He declares, that none but he that
doeth righteousness can claim to be one born of God ;
that he which sinneth hath not seen Christ, neither
known Him, however he may boast ; that he who com-
mitteth sin is of the devil ; that he who hateth his brother
is a murderer ; that he only who loveth is born of God,
and knoweth God ; and that, while no man hath seen
God, yet, if we love one another, God dwelleth in us. ( i
John i. 6; ii. 4, 9, 29; iii. 6, 8, 15 ; iv. 7, 8, 12, 16.)
False gnosis could not be more directly struck at.
Its chief lie has ever been, — the profession of knowing
God without holiness; the delusion of an absolute
knowledge of Deity, coupled with contempt of divine
commandments ; a lie which is the same, whether the
method be, dialectics, or penances, abstract speculation,
or ecstatic celebration of impure mysteries. And the
second delusion was — the dream of the Gnostic, in his
spiritual pride, that he was of divine descent, and that
divine substance formed the essence of his being, either
by a mythological emanation from the world of light,
or by a metaphysical identity of the divine and human
spirits ; whence it followed that, as that which is divine
cannot perish, humility, watchfulness, and moral
discipline, were superfluous.
The same strong delusion appears, only in a new
garb, in the modern pantheistic systems. It is essentially
the same as that of the Antichrists in John's days. It
arises in both cases out of the perversion of Christian

242 s. john's witness against the gnostics.
truth and experience. And it has been of late pro
pagated by men who, unlike the flat prosaic rationa
list, have known somewhat of the higher truths and
operations of Christianity. Divine grace imparts to
man a living knowledge of God, in order that he may
thence draw power to be holy. Does he faithlessly
withhold worship, and neglect sanctification, he is on
that very way against which John warns. Has he, by
nature, a mystical tendency, and an ambitious spirit,
which do not suffer him to sink into mere stupid in
difference, he comes necessarily to that point, at which
he perverts Christian knowledge into pantheistic con
templation of God, and communion with Christ into
man's essential deity. The mystery of the faith can
only be held in a pure conscience and loving heart.
Else it is distorted into a heretical lie, and forms the
cradle of the mystery of wickedness.
Those errors in doctrine regarding Christ with which
John had to contend, and which plainly had a like
origin, seem, at first sight rather strange. His test of
true spirits, drawn from their confession of Jesus Christ
come in the flesh ; his condemnation of those who do
not confess this, (or, according to the ancient various
reading, who divide or dissolve the true Christ of God
[i John iv. i — 3; 2 John 7; 1 John ii. 22, 23],) as
deceivers and Antichrists ; his assertion, that he is a liar,
who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, and he the Anti
christ, who denieth the Father and the Son, who hath
not the Son, and therefore not the Father ; — all these
plainly bear reference, not to mere Judaism, or Hea
thenism, but to a definite heresy, which was maintained,
not merely by false teachers, but by false prophets, and
which was the fruit, not merely of human error, but of

DOKETISM. 243
delusion by evil spirits. He speaks of trying, not
merely doctrines, but spirits, which, pretending to be
the Spirit of God, supernaturally used the lips of men.
And he declares, that, while they can ape the Spirit of
God in all other things, they can never confess Jesus
Christ come, and coming in the flesh, — seeing that it is
the peculiar office of the Holy Spirit to testify to Him
who had been made man, to glorify Him, and to re
cognize Him as the Head of the Church.* Yet the
false teachers did also deny that which the lying spirits
could not confess. " Flesh " means not the body alone,
but the whole nature of man, in its frailness and mor
tality, in the sense of the Hebraic, not of the classic
Greek, and in accordance [with the Old Testament
style of expression. These false teachers claimed to
be Christians, knowing ones (or Gnostics), illuminated
ones, tear i%oxrjv. Their heresy had nothing in common
with the vulgar Jewish, or superficial rationalist, ideas of
Christ, as of a mere man, in which ideas, however
fatally wrong, there was nothing fascinating. Their
error lay in denying His manhood. They recognized
His supernatural dignity, which the Church held fast,
* The Holy Spirit, being eternally the Spirit of God, became,
through the incarnation of the Son, the Spirit of Christ the man ;
was humbled, and is glorified, with Him. He confesses Christ as
man, by coming from Him, and leading to Him— a. fact, which false
spirits cannot produce? In order to be condemned, they do not
need to deny Christ. If they are silent, it is enough. The Holy
Spirit necessarily testifies of Christ This is not His collateral cre
dential, in doing some other work. It is His very work. Whereas
devils, however they may magnify a god not incarnate, may ape
piety, love, and holiness, may prate of mysteries, threaten judg
ment, and dazzle to enslave, ever shrink before Jesus, their con
queror in flesh.— Tr.
R 2

244 DOKETISM.
and which none could deny who had ever come into
living contact with Christianity. And, to the inex
perienced, it seems unintelligible, that the Antichristian
system should rest on a denial of Christ's true humanity,
while His truly divine origin and character were pro
fessedly acknowledged and contemplated. Yet this
denial of the incarnation is the very centre of Gnosticism ;
because the acknowledgment of that fact brings with
it the obligation to holiness, and the faith of the resur
rection — the very things, with the rejection of which
apostasy began, as we may learn from the writings of
Paul, Peter, and Jude, and from the Revelation. And
the opponents of John took a consistent step in advance,.
when, from denying the return of Christ to judgment,
the reward of works, the resurrection of the body, and
the obligation to holiness, they proceeded to question
His incarnation. In the next century they proceeded
to blaspheme the Creator, denouncing Him, who made
the worlds, as not being the true God.
In the time of John things had not gone so far.
Neither in his, nor in the earlier New Testament
writings, which treat of Gnosticism, is there any mention
of the Demiurgus, the chief subject of controversy in
the second century, — -a circumstance which goes far to
prove the prior date of those writings. On the other
hand, the error of the Docetae had probably already
appeared in its two principal forms. In regard to the
first of these, the expressions of John, as to those who-
did not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,
pointed to that heresy against which, in the next gene
ration, Ignatius contended, in his epistles to the Ephe
sians and Smyrnaens, two of the seven Churches, —
when, in opposition to the statement that "Christ

TWO FORMS OF DOKETISM. 245
•suffered in appearance only," he maintained that Christ
was still "in the flesh," even after His resurrection.
These men ascribed to the super-terrene Christ, a simi
litude of humanity, a figment in which He walked on
earth. Thus, with them, both His birth and His death
were mere appearances, by acknowledging which they
escaped the offence of the cross, and could appeal to
the old heathen belief in the appearance of the Homeric
deities, and in mystical theophanies, as kindred pheno
mena — immortals mixing with mortals in a mere tran
sient masquerade of manhood. Nor were analogous
elements of error wanting in the ideas of the Israelites
as to an expected appearance of Messiah, — similar to
those of God and of angels, under the Old Testament, —
in human form, without partaking of human nature.
So that, although this error was heathen in its origin,
it had its hold on Jewish as well as Gentile Christians.
The second phase of Docetic error, while it recognized
the reality of our Lord's birth as man, was, that the
heavenly Christ descended upon the earthly Jesus at
His baptism, spake and wrought by Him for a time, and
then forsook Him, before His sufferings. We have
distinct historical evidence, that this error, Jewish in
its origin, met the Apostle John in the person of the
heresiarch Cerinthus. To it refers that ancient various
reading, " Every spirit which resolves or separates
(Xia) Christ, is not of God," — which, although not
genuine, was read as early as the second century, in
both Greek and Latin manuscripts of John's Epistle ; —
and, yet more distinctly, the following, " Who is a liar
but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ." Against
both these fundamental errors, one Greek, the other
Jewish, do his concluding words tell, "This (Jesus

246 CERINTHUS.
Christ, whom we preach) is the true God, and eternal
life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
(1 John v. 21.) By these words the Apostle seems to
point, not so much to the gross idols of pagan worship,.
as to the fantastic and delusive representations of Christ
by those heretics who deny the mystery of the Incar
nation. We have learned from the Epistle to the Colossians,
how a false gnosis, derived from Essene Judaism,
sought entrance into the Church, under the garb, not of
license, as in other cases, but of great ascetic severity.
This gnosis probably found in Cerinthus a supporter ;
although we know nothing certain as to his doctrines.
Epiphanius is plainly wrong in ascribing to him every
thing which Paul's Epistles condemn as Judaizing.
Irenaeus makes him the author of a very different
system, like that of Valentinus, which, however adopted
by later Cerinthians, is as erroneously carried back to
the first century as that ascribed to Simon the sorcerer.
And, lastly, if Cerinthus, according to the report of
others, expected a millennium full of earthly enjoyment,
and a restoration of the temple worship and bloody
sacrifices, his views were nothing peculiar, but the
usual Messias doctrine of the Pharizees. We hold,
at any rate, that to be a fact, which Irenaeus (Iren..
Haar. iii. 3, 4) gives us, as from the mouth of Polycarp,
that John, when he learned that Cerinthus was in the
bath which he was about to enter, retreated hastily,
fearing that the building might fall on such an enemy
of the truth. This harmonizes with the known strict
ness of John's discipline as to heretics. Church history
has not lost much by our ignorance of these errors in
all their sad details.

S. JOHN S GOSPEL. 247
In contrast to the forgeries of the heretics, John
has given us, in his Gospel, the genuine picture of the
true Christ. " Many other signs," says he " did Jesus
in presence of His disciples, which are not written in
this book. But these are written, that ye may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing ye may
have life through His name" (John xx. 30, 31.) This
historical document stands in most intimate connection
with the encyclical Epistle. The Epistle points back
to it. (1 John i. 1, 3 ; ii. 14.) The former could not effect
its end without the latter ; and it was, probably, not only
•composed with the same object as the Gospel, but
attached, as an accompanying letter, to the Gospel, when
delivered to the Churches. We cannot exactly fix the
date of this Gospel. Jerusalem was already destroyed.
The author regards the Jews as already foreign to him
and the Church. Internal arguments show that the
Gospel and the Epistles of John are all posterior in date
to the Apocalypse. We may fairly suppose, that St.
John had prepared the materials for his Gospel long
before, and that its publication took place towards
the end of the first century.
Those miss the true aim of John's Gospel, who think
that he had in his eye, either the accusations of the
Jews, or the prejudices of the disciples of the Baptist.
His description of Christ's dignity necessarily con
tained, without any intention, an answer to the Jews.
And the bearing upon the Baptist is only apparent ; for,
in the repeated comparison of Christ with him, and the
description of the Baptist's homage (John i. 8, 20, 26 ;
iii. 27), the latter, as the last and greatest prophet, is
taken as representing the whole Old Testament dispen-

248 THE OBJECT OF S. JOHN'S GOSPEL.
sation, in its best and highest form, which the New, as
seen in the Gospels and in the Church, was to excel.
The ancients found John's Gospel full of polemic
testimony against Ebion, Cerinthus, and the Gnostics.
And, if they have gone too far, in doing so, its modern
enemies have repeated the same fault, in pursuit of
their objects. Whatever general allusions may be in
the Gospel, it descends still less than the Epistle into
particulars. We might, indeed, have been disposed to
expect a special reference to the difficulties of Jewish
disciples, regarding the true divinity of Christ. But here,
also, we find no details. The mighty assertion, however,
of the mystery of incarnation, was enough to dissipate,
of itself, all Gnostic and Ebionite dreams. Verum index
sui et falsi. And, as the Apocalypse testifies, for all
ages, against the decay of the Church, so does this
Gospel stand, for all time, as a test, for the detection,
and an engine for the overthrow, of all heresy regarding
Christ. This document was framed, not for Jews or heretics,
but for the Church of God. Its composition and
solemn publication formed an important part of that
apostolic labour, by which John sought to bring the
Church to perfection. He did a work which had been
reserved for him. He added, to the already existing
three canonical Gospels, a concluding one, which the
Church had reason to expect, as soon as she had
practically experienced and appropriated the contents of
the others.
That information, from the elders of antiquity, pre
served by Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi.
14), the credibility of which we have already seen es
tablished in regard to Mark, says of John, " Last of all

s. john's gospel and the synoptics. 249
•did John, encouraged by his friends, when he heard that
in those writings the bodily Gospel was already declared,
compose, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, a spiri
tual Gospel." John pre-supposes the existence of the
three other Gospels. He omits many things which
they contain, not as unimportant, but as already suffi
ciently certified. He does not publish, as it were, a
sheet of additions, to supply things omitted by chance.
But in this respect he completes his predecessors, that
he produces a treasure of truth and light which they
had no occasion to publish. The chief subjects df
this spiritual Gospel, are the words of Christ which
establish His divinity, and the promises of the Com
forter; subjects not unkown to the faithful, nor un
written, but not yet solemnly delivered to all the
Churches in an authentic document. Here they stand
for themselves, associated with a small selection of
facts, in the " pneumatic " Gospel ; i.e. in a writing,
in which everything is of a spiritual signification. It is
plain that even the external events narrated are chosen
on account of their latent import. The miracles of
Christ were sufficiently attested as mere external events.
The miracles and other occurrences which John re
lates, are all symbols of deep spiritual truths, and
typical prophecies of future events. Yet they were not
the less actual events, according to his express as
surance that he had seen them. (John i. 14; xix. 35 ;
xxi 24; 1 John i. 1.)
There is space enough, in the three years of our
Lord's public ministry, for all that John narrates, as
well as for the things narrated by the other Evangelists.
But the character of those words of our Lord which
John reports, stands strikingly contrasted with that of

250 s. john's gospel and the synoptics.
those reported by the other three. In the latter, the
form is proverbial ; in the former, contemplative. In
the latter, we have words of practical wisdom ; in the
former, words of divine knowledge; — a combination,
in Christ, of two gifts distinct in the Church. ( 1 Cor.
xii. 8.) In the latter, we have the popular manner of the
Scribes, in its true perfection ; in the former, that
sublime calmness of expression, so peculiar to the
individuality of the Word made flesh, which occurs
only once elsewhere, namely, in the only prayer of
Christ recorded by the synoptic Gospels. (Matt. xi. 25 —
27.) John, one of the three most intimately acquainted
with the life of Christ, and, of those three, that disciple
whom the Lord loved, had so completely apprehended
and represented this rarely exhibited side of our Lord's
spiritual being, that his own manner of teaching assimi
lates itself to that of his Master.
It is, however, singular that one man should be the
author of two so diverse works as the Gospel and the
Apocalypse ; or rather that Christ should have counted
one disciple worthy to be the channel for both com
munications to the Church. John was indeed endowed
with a plenitude of grace in his exercise of the apo
stolic office, both as Prophet and as Evangelist. Yet
these, his two functions, are not so very diverse as it is
generally thought. The glory of the Church, and that
of its Head, which are both to be shown forth, stand
in the most intimate connection. Both were published
through John ; diverse in form, but essentially one. The
apparent difference between the two writings as regards
doctrinal system disappears, when we understand them
better. The visible return of Christ, and the resurrec
tion of the body, are not stated in the Apocalypse

s. john's gospel and the apocalpyse. 251
alone. We learn them from the Gospel and the
Epistles also.
It cannot be denied, however, that the styles are
very diverse. And, if the Apocalypse were the mere
work of human fancy and poetic genius, this diversity
might be difficult to explain. But the Apocalypse is a
prophecy. And, therefore, although the work of the
same Spirit with the Gospel, its form could not but be
different. No man prophesies in the same language
in which he narrates. Ecstasy and meditation find very
different modes of utterance. The mightiest emotions
and the deepest repose must generate very different
styles. The contrast is seen in the writings of the Old
Testament. The variation lies much more in the subject
than in the writer or speaker. The same prophet,
e.g. Isaiah, expresses himself very differently in his
prophecies, and in his narratives. Even in Greek
literature, different dialects became stereotyped, as
most appropriate to different branches of literature.
The Gospel of John exhibits at least the same
measure of advance, in the knowledge of God's coun
sels, as the last of Paul's Epistles ; and- is near akin to
them. Not as if John had merely adopted Paul's ideas,
and put them into the mouth of our Lord. Those words
of Christ, which were reserved for John to record, had
been already the fountain of Paul's doctrine. But more
than this: throughout John's Epistles and Gospel, it
is assumed, that the Church to which they were ad
dressed had already attained that for which Paul
wrestled ; no longer contending with the demands of
Judaism; conscious of her independence, and of her
exaltation above Israel, as one with Christ. Therefore

252 INFLUENCE OF S. JOHNS GOSPEL.
John carries us a step farther than Paul, because the
Church herself had gone on.
The Gospel and accompanying labours of John, had
the most powerful operation, in fixing the spiritual
character of the whole Church, for the second century,
and of the Oriental Churches, for many ages. Paul, in
his contest with Judaism, had, as it were, rehearsed
the controversies of the Reformation. But, in the
second century, we find the Church everywhere at rest
upon the questions which had previously agitated her.
The calm consciousness of her liberty in Christ had
succeeded to her struggle for its assertion. The pro
minent feature is no longer effort, but contemplation
and worship. The subject of instruction is no longer
righteousness by faith, but the incarnation of the Word.
Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex
andria, in spite of the peculiarities of each, are all
occupied with this : Christ — very God and very man —
the one, against the Ebionites, — the other, against the
Gnostics. All other doctrines are referred to this
centre. The very fragments of Christian literature from
the second century are full of it. Hence it comes, that
the first acquaintance of a strict one-sided Protestant
with the oldest of the Christian fathers, disappoints
him. Repentance and remission of sins, inefficacy of
works, justification by faith only, occupy no prominent
place in our oldest patristic theology. Christendom
then stood in admiration and adoration of the great
objective mystery of godliness. And the controversies
and the creeds of the great Councils show how long the
whole Church, especially the Greek, occupied this same
position towards Christian truth. Whence, but from
John and his Gospel, are we to deduce this condition of

INFLUENCE OF S. JOHNS GOSPEL. 253
things ? The prologue of his Gospel was 'the great
subject of meditation for many centuries. His personal
influence has left much more distinct and enduring
traces than that of any other disciple of Christ. Paul
planted more Churches, but John stamped his image on
them more deeply. This was no retrograde step. We
dare not say that the primitive Church should have
taken a form like that of orthodox Protestantism. On
the contrary, the latter should learn, from Christian
antiquity, to leave first principles, and to go on to per
fection and to the perfect stature of Christ. John had the
same right as Paul to say, " Be ye followers of me, as I
am of Christ." And the Church, not of Asia alone, but
of the whole world, did actually follow him.
But has the Church actually to acknowledge the
Apostle John as the instrument in this advance ? Or is it
to be ascribed to some other man — some great unknown
whose name and memory are lost ? The latter is the
wild supposition, which all those erratic spirits must
make, who deny the genuineness of John's Gospel. For
the Church, the contents of this Gospel are abundantly
attested, by the mission of the Paraclete therein pro
mised, in the stead and power of the living Christ, the
risen Son. And in the providence of God, this Gospel
has become a remarkable proof of the folly of the wise.
If they will not make the author a liar, and thereby
condemn themselves, they have no resource, but to
represent him as a poet, who makes no pretensions to
historical truth, and uses his poetical narrative only as a
good vehicle for philosophical ideas. But even this
hypothesis, the newest birth of a frantic criticism, can
not show its face without upsetting itself. John testifies
with sacred solemnity, as one who had seen and

254 AUTHENTICITY OF S, JOHN S GOSPEL.
handled, not only that the ideas are true, but that
those outward events which formed the vehicle of divine
thoughts, had actually taken place. (John xix. 35.)
And the company of his disciples have affixed their
Amen, in testimony that the person who saw, attested,
and wrote all this, was no other than the Apostle whom
Jesus loved. (John xxi. 24.) It is an utter impos
sibility in ecclesiastical history, to imagine another
author, who shall have composed this, the most in
fluential of all Christian documents, and then, modestly
concealing himself, have ascribed it to John. We
might as well say : The Church has not come forth
from Christ ; some agent, unknown and unnamed, has
created and vivified her, and has passed off the stage
undiscovered, having, in humility, ascribed his labours
to another, a certain Christ. So wild are the expedients
resorted to by those, who would refer to any other the
doctrine, writings, and spiritual character of John, in
order to avoid the recognition of the contents of his
Gospel, as divine, entire, and immovable truth. We
do not know the secret motives of individuals, in their
scepticism as to the Gospels. But there can be little
doubt, that not a few among those multitudes, who
blindly assent to this negative criticism, and hold. the
wildest dreams to be more probable than the truth,
resemble the atheists, who say: we will not believe
in God ; for, if there is a God, He must condemn us.
If the influence of John was so great, through his
teaching, it was no less so, through his ecclesiastical
government. The institutions of the Church, as well
as her dogma, owe their progress to him, not as
excluding, or in opposition to, the other Apostles, but
in harmony with the survivors, with those already

AUTHENTICITY OF S. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 255
employed as apostolic delegates, and with the first
bishops of the principal Churches. It is probable that
two Apostles at least survived in the time of John, and
had their last spheres of labour not far from his place
of abode. Philip, one of the twelve, who, like the
deacon of the same name, had daughters who pro
phesied, but who must not on that account be con
founded with the deacon and evangelist, passed his last
days in the Phryigian Hierapolis. (Polycrates of
Ephesus, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24.) Andrew, the
brother of Simon Peter, laboured in Scythia. (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. iii. 1 .)
There are ordinances enough, in the Church of the
second and third century,' which cannot be connected with
those parts of the New Testament which were written
before John. Yet they must be deduced from an
apostolic source. If we confine ourselves to the Epistles
of Paul and Peter, and to the Acts, we cannot construct
from them that form, undoubtedly divine, which the
Church presented in the second century. The primitive
catholic Church, — with its bishops and metropolitans,
its living unity, its strict, uniform and universal discipline,
its feasts and fasts, is yet unwritten, but, in the chief
features, fixed and settled liturgy, its universal and
accordant rule of faith, its collection of canonical
writings, equal in sacredness to those of the Old
Testament, — this sublime structure, presented to us
by the writings and fragments of the fathers of the
second century, stands symmetrically developed and
ordered, a work of more than human wisdom, a miracle
of creative, combining, and controlling power. We
see the beauty and greatness of the edifice. We know
the master builders, Peter and Paul, who laid the

256 ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITUTIONS.
foundation. But who they were that built thereon,
and brought up the work, in such firmness and sym
metry, is a question which we at first feel unable to
answer — so scanty are our historical notices during the
whole interval between the Acts of the Apostles and
the time of Hadrian — almost two generations. Yet
there must have been very much done in this interval
for the organization of the Church. And that which
was done, must have been evidently invested with
divine authority, in order to have produced such per
manent and universal effects. For no one, who has
any understanding of men, or any acquaintance with
experience, can fail to see, that nothing but authority,
and that divine, could have brought such unity and
order into being. If it were possible to bring the
present parties of Christendom back into unity and
harmony, without an authority directly proceeding from
Christ, it were also possible that the unity and order of
those Churches, which stood the conflict with heathens
and Gnostics, was the result of something less. But,
as a universal authority, established from above, is the
only possible cure for the present divisions of the
Church, so could nothing less than apostolic authority
have brought the various elements of which the Church
was formed at the first into essential unity and right
form. Purely historical grounds entitle, nay force, us
to refer all those institutions, as well as doctrines, in
which the primitive Church was agreed, to an apostolic
origin. And, in most cases, this origin necessarily falls
within the time of John.
Still we must beware of blindly accepting all the
traditions pf Christian antiquity. We know that the
episcopal Church of the two following centuries sus-

EPISCOPACY. 257
tained such severe spiritual losses, and fell internally so
very low as compared with the Church in the Apostolic
age, that it cannot in any particular be adopted without
examination as a perfect pattern. On the contrary,
every institution of post-apostolic antiquity requires to
be subjected to a searching criticism, and has no claim
to divine authority, unless it can in substance be
justified out of Holy Scripture.*
The universality and fixed expression of the epi-
* Nothing was more natural, than that, after the first excitement
of testimony and gathering was over, after the two component parts
of the Church has been reconciled by Peter and Paul, after the fall
of Jerusalem had vindicated the true Christian standing, and while
persecution slept, the Christians should have had their thoughts
directed to inquire, how they might improve the quiet granted to
them, in the development of Christian worship. To none could
they more fitly turn for guidance than to the last of the Apostles.
None so much as he could have the gift by which to devise or per
fect the essence and accidents of acceptable worship. And the
Churches especially under his care, the seven, were the most
natural theatre for the exhibition of his institutions. Hence the
worship of these seven Churches would not only be in advance of
that in the rest, but become justly a model for their observance.
And we cannot doubt that, under apostolic nurture, all the gifts of
the Spirit, but especially that of prophecy, by which the types of
Christian worship in the tabernacle are opened and applied'
obtained large development, and served as a guard against the
mixture of human schemes with divine ordinances. The subsequent
misapplication of the light thus given, and the quenching of the
Spirit, which were the natural consequences of the disappearance
of the Apostles, were inlets for later errors. As Churches under
apostolic guidance led on to perfection at the first, so must it be
again, if we are to be perfected. None but Apostles, no self-
constituted empiric, with a bible in his hand, but no faith in the
continuous presence and traditions of Christ, can separate the
precious from the vile, and establish the former. A true revival
despises no past attainments. — Tr. s

258 EPISCOPACY.
scopate, immediately after the Apostolic age, is the
most remarkable of all facts in the history of Church
government. The first question is, how far it rests on
Christ's appointment. We might approach very near
to the answer of this question, by a retrograde process,
in which we start from the state of things in the second
century, and trace it up to its beginnings. But our
chief business here is to enquire, whether the writings
of John himself, and other direct testimonies out of the
first century, afford us any fixed data.
Now the Apocalypse does provide us with a safe
starting point in investigating the origin of episcopacy.
What are the " angels of the seven Churches," to whom
the Epistles are directed, but chief shepherds, each at
the head of a Church, similar at least to bishops in later
times? The ancients regarded them as bishops. Of
all the fathers who touch on the subject, not one thinks
of any other explanation. Some moderns are the first
to have lighted on the idea that these angels (ayyeXoi)
were genii. But the reading, "Unto the guardian
spirit of the Church at Ephesus write," is too absurd to
require a refutation. Of no greater value is another
hypothesis, that bishops are addressed, existing in idea,
not in reality. Those messengers of God, of whom each
was called to receive praise or blame, promise or
threatening, for the actual condition of his Church, were
undoubtedly no imaginary quantities, or abstract repre
sentations, but real men— chief shepherds, responsible
to Christ. Their title sounds strange to many indeed ;
but not to him who^remembers, that, in the Old Testa
ment also, the priest, whose lips should keep knowledge,
and at whose mouth men should seek the law, is called
a Maleach, i. e. ayyi\oz — an angel — a messenger of the

EPISCOPACY.

259

Lord of Sabaoth (Mai. ii. 7); and that John, the
divinely sent precursor of Christ, bears the same title of
honor. (Math. xi. 10.) The head of the congregation,
who receives from the Lord, for them, direction,
authority, and revelation, is, in reference to such
functions, most appropriately styled — messenger of
heaven, ambassador of Christ.*
Still, it were an error to suppose that these angels of
the Churches were bishops, in the more modern accept
ation of the word. For what is understood by bishop,
according to the usual episcopal system ? The president
set over the elders, and distinguished from them by
the power to confirm and ordain. But this does not
answer to the chief shepherd's office under John. As
long as the Apostles were in life, these two great func
tions were reserved for them and their delegates. And
this was especially the case in the seven Churches, while
John was still there. It was he himself who planted
and sealed Churches in Western Asia Minor, and
consecrated their clergy, as described in the tradition
preserved by Clement of Alexandria. (Euseb. Hist.
Eccl. iii. 23.) Yet, although these heads of the seven
Churches had not the large powers, which were
assumed by bishops on the death of the Apostles, there
is a most perceptible difference between their office
and that of the mere elder. There were, as we learn
from the parting address of Paul at Miletus, many
-elders in the numerous Church at Ephesus (Acts xx.
* We may add, that, regarding angels or bishops as representing
especially the presence of the Lord, who is the Angel of the
Covenant, they fulfil the office of John in preparing His way, by both
symbolizing His future presence with us, and now preparing, each
his own church, for the Lord's return.— Tr.
S 2

260 EPISCOPACY.
17, 28), who had a common charge over the flock.
But here we see an individual called to account for all
that was done in the Church at Ephesus. The elders
were overseers, or bishops of the laity. He was the
overseer, or bishop of the elders.* This place he must
have obtained, not by human arrangement, but by
divine institution. Else it could not have been bound
up with such weighty duties. His responsibility for the
failures and transgressions which occurred under his
eyes, implied his right and power to command, to
exercise discipline, to hold judgment, to expel the
unworthy, and to exact obedience in alf spiritual things.
If all others were not bound to obey him, rebuke
could have had no right application to him. The
Church had to learn from him. He had to stand at its
head in worshipping God. His unity with the Church,
as head with body, was such, that they two were
regarded and addressed as one. This could never
have been, if he was only for a short time, by rotation,
at the head of .the college of elders, as primus inter
pares. Christ holds the seven stars fast in His right
hand. And these were the angels of the seven Churches.
His presence and His power to sustain the Churches
* By another theory, the term angel has been applied to the
collective ministry of Christ in each flock, as a unity. This is true in
one sense. But it leaves undecided the question, whether this
ministry was not headed up in one, and whether he was not the
person addressed. If the ways of God had not become further
developed in Ephesus, since Paul's time, by the episcopate, we do
not see why John did not follow Paul's example, and still address the
elders. And we know that precisely such a. development took
place at Jerusalem, the first model. For, while Paul and Barnabas
found only elders there (Acts xi. 30), within a short time thereafter
James appears there as bishop. (Acts xii. 17 ; xxi. iS.)— TR.

EPISCOPACY. 26l
were at once expressed and exercised by their chief
¦shepherds. He must have set the men where He thus
used them. Their peculiar place was as little the
arbitrary appointment of man, as that of the elders was.
Here then we have the sacerdotal episcopacy, not as
a substitute for apostleship, and assuming like func
tions, but simultaneous with it, upheld by it, subordi
nate to it, clothed with powers, not apostolic, but
exceeding those of elders, and so distinctly recognized
and confirmed by the Lord Himself, that we cannot
avoid regarding it as instituted by Him through
Apostles.* This is the more important, that we have
good reason to regard the Apocalypse as written soon
after the year 70. For, if so, we see that chief shep
herds or angels were already at that date set over the
Churches in Asia. This institution, so important in its
consequences for the Gentile Churches, on wbich the
pastoral Epistles of Paul are silent, must therefore have
come into manifestation during the short interval be
tween the date of Paul's Epistles and that of the
Apocalypse. And the only remaining question is,
whether this occurred before, or after, the death of
Peter and Paul ? Keeping in view, that the episcopate
had already existed in Jerusalem in the person of
James ; that the Roman Church, founded by Peter,

* While the angel's office stood, in one respect, lower than sub
sequent episcopacy, by not assuming apostleship, yet, in every other
respect, being upheld by apostleship, it had not only a truer place,
but higher powers, as representing to each flock what the Lord
alone is to the whole Church. The worthy estimate of the bishop's
dignity, in the early Church, arose, not after the departure, but
during the life of Apostles. Churches devoted to tradition, dared
¦not to invent, though they exaggerated, episcopacy. — Tr.

262 METROPOLITAN CHURCHES.
was composed chiefly of Jews, and therefore most
probably builded after the pattern of Jerusalem ; and
that, according to the express assertion of antiquity,
the first Roman bishop was appointed by Peter
himself; — there is everything in favor of the belief,
that the episcopate had already appeared at Rome,
before the death of the two Apostles, and had thus
received their sanction, during their last and joint
labors. And, in addition to all this, if John was at
Rome during the persecution by Nero, and thereafter
transferred his sphere of labor into Asia, nothing
appears more rational, than that he should make it his
first business, to follow the example of Rome, and,
through Rome, of Jerusalem, in bestowing a chief
shepherd or angel on each Church.
But if Jerusalem, at the outset, and Rome and
Ephesus, soon after, were provided with bishops, we
may well conclude that the two other metropolitan
Churches, in Antioch and Alexandria, would not be far
behind, in this completion of their organization. We
have, from Eusebius, the lists of their bishops, reaching
up into the first century. Even supposing that the
episcopate had not previously appeared in those cities
independently of John, they would certainly have
followed Asia, the place where John's government and
the Churches governed by him formed a guide for other
rulers and Churches. And, by a like analogy, each
metropolis would lead the Churches gathered around
it. Imitation of apostolic institutions, assimilation to-
that which subsisted with apostolic approbation, was
the only way, in which the remarkable agreement,.
observable at the end of the first century, could have
been brought about. If the great mother Churches,.

SECOND EPISTLE OF S. JOHN. 263
and the few yet laboring Apostles, led the way, there
was hardly need for a special Council in Palestine, to
recommend episcopacy to the whole of Christendom.
If we err not, the episcopal and metropolitan insti
tutions arose simultaneously, whatever delay may
have occurred in the exact ascertainment of the limits
of the latter. The mother Churches were greatly and
justly reverenced by their numerous daughters. This
relation seems to explain the second Epistle of John,
which is undoubtedly his. " The elect lady," &c,
refers, not to the Christian mistress of a family, but to
a Church. The ancients understood it so. And the
concluding words — " The children of thy sister," &c,
are in like manner to be understood of a Church, viz.,
of that in which John was at the time. But the one
addressed is styled lady or ruler, because of her pre
cedence as the pattern for the rest. This Church was
probably Ephesus.* Yet, be all this as it may, metro
politan Churches existed ; and, as they stood related to
the rest, so did their bishops to the rest. Metropolitan
bishops certainly had, as early as the time of John, a
priority among their brethren.
Episcopacy became thus rapidly the universal law of
the Church, because of its peculiar adaptation to the
internal and external circumstances of the faithful.
The infrequency of personal visits from Apostles, and
the decrease of their number and labors, must have
* No corporate unity exhibits a dead and uniform level. Pre
cedence and rule are totally different. But the former is as essential
as the latter. The precedence of one Church leads on the whole.
But its usurpation of rule turns the whole out of the way of God.
Rule is not erected from beneath, or collected from around, but
descends from above. — Tk.

264 BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS.
led to insurmountable difficulties in the government of a
large flock by many co-ordinate elders. Every dispute
among them must have rent the congregation, and
teemed with the evils of polyarchy. When a teacher
of heresy arose in the flock, or sought entrance from
without, nothing less than a powerful government in the
hand of one man, the most tried and enlightened, could
protect against the danger. What Jerome says,* is the
simple truth, that, in order to prevent divisions, one of
the presbyters was preferred to the others. It was
utterly impossible for the Apostles and their delegates
alone, so to instruct and empower as many elders as
the Churches needed, that each should be capable,
without any intermediate supervision, of guiding the flock
and maintaining the integrity of the truth. It was a far
better arrangement, to prepare and elevate a few, who
should be made responsible for the rest. In this way the
best precaution was taken for the right preservation of
tradition in doctrine and conversation, and the best
machinery provided for holding together, both the
Churches of one province, and the ecclesiastical bodies
of many provinces.
We do not yet speak of the work presented to the
bishops by the total disappearance of Apostles and
delegates; which necessarily forced them into larger
functions. Bishop and presbyter stood originally much
nearer to one another than afterwards. Apart from the
greater responsibility of the former, there was little in
his duties which the latter also could not perform,-*-
* Hieronymns, epist. 101, (al. 85,) ad Evangelum and comm. in
epist. ad Tit. 1, 7.
t This I question. What bishops have since gained, in outward
dignity and assumed apostleship, they have lost in the power of

BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 265
provided he did it in the spirit and under the com
mission of the angel. As to this transition period, the
statement of the fathers is true, that the bishop was
originally only the first of the priests.* But that which
the moderns assert is not true, that there was a period,
when the whole Churches were guided, no longer by
Apostles, and not yet by bishops, but by colleges of
presbyters. Such a " presbyterian age," between the
apostolic and the episcopal, is a pure dream of system-
makers. It is very likely, that individual Churches
may, from various causes, have hung behind those in
the principal cities, and gone for some time without
bishops. But, on the whole, the episcopate must, on
the extinction of the apostolate in John, have been so
far developed, that apostolic functions, in so far as
necessary, were taken up at once by the episcopate.
Seeing the proof to be so strong, that the Apostles
themselves created the highest of the three orders in
the Christian hierarchy, we should be slow to listen to
the objection, that the exaltation of the bishop was in
itself an unchristian act, at least if regarded as more
than a mere expedient arrangement. If we admit the
scriptural character of the Christian ministry generally,
their proper place. Subordinate to and upheld by Apostles, they
are distinguished by functions, to which no presbyter is competent,
and which no other bishops exercise. — Tr.
* Presbyterians gain nothing, by showing, that all presbyters
were called bishops. This does not prove that there was no pecu
liar office of bishop. Every man who has the care of others — be he
bishop, presbyter, or apostle — is in so far a bishop. But the ques
tion is, whether one man, in each Church and its offsets, had not,
by divine appointment, the supervision of all ministers, and the
¦carrying out of all apostolic laws, therein 2— Tr.

266 BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS.
as claiming to be appointed of Christ, we cannot deny
that its gradations may also be of divine appointment.
If the shepherd's office consists with the mind of Christ,
why not the over-shepherds ? If it does not become
mortal men to be over-shepherds, it still less became
them to be Apostles. If it is a Christian duty to protest, in
the name of Christian liberty, against episcopacy, it was
a much clearer duty to protest against the authority of
Paul, Peter, and John. If the very name of hierarchy
has become an offence to men, the fault lies not with
its Founder, but with its worthless occupants. The
offence is not proper to its essence, but the punishment
of its abuse. The abuse is no argument against either
its excellence or its divine origin. As the best doctrine
so the best office, can, by abuse, become the worst.
Every Christian truth, used in the Spirit, {e.g. justifica
tion by faith,) is a source of light, comfort, and
holiness, — used in the flesh, of doubt, reluctance, and
abomination. The episcopal office has no privilege in
this respect. Selfish men have profaned it, and made
it hurtful. But its origin is not in ambition. Its essence
is not un- or anti-apostolic. Though Paul does not
name Episcopacy, he does say, that there are numerous
members in the body of Christ, of which each has to
occupy its own place. This diversity is of God. The
consecration to various degrees of Christian ministry is
only the divine expression and sanction of this diversity.
No doubt, those who are preferred are ever in danger
of self-exaltation. But though the danger is unavoid
able, the sin is not. All offices in the Church, and
especially the episcopate, are seen, when fulfilled in the
Spirit, to be full of blessing. And history tells every
man of Christian discernment plainly enough, that,

THIRD EPISTLE GF S. JOHN. 267
except in the Apostolic age itself, the Church never was
so prosperous as during the second and third centuries
in which she stood, neither under popes, nor under
princes, nor under presbyters, but under bishops.
Yet the abuse of so great a power as that possessed
by the angels of the Churches not only was possible,
but actually occurred. The third Epistle of John is
addressed to Gaius, a man at the head of a Church,
who had received strangers, that had gone forth for the
name of Christ, without taking anything of the heathen,
— evidently evangelists, following Paul's example. But
Diotrephes had not given them the same reception, and
had prevented others from doing so. He sought, in
that Church to usurp the highest authority, with which
the right of excommunication was associated ; and he
asserted it against the Apostle himself, rejecting his
admonitions. He used the power of the keys in a
tyrannical manner. And it required the personal in
terposition of the Apostle to remedy the evil. We
may gather, from the commendation of Demetrius, that
he was the person selected by John, to be the head in
place of Diotrephes. The existence of the office of
chief shepherd in that Church was questioned by no
party, certainly not by John. The abuse of the institu
tion proved its existence.
We need not here enter into the expressions of
Ignatius, and those after him, as to the deep meaning
and salutary working of the threefold gradation of
office. John's own writings contain views which must
have had their influence upon the nascent episcopate.
Christ Himself, as the Head of the Church, appears, in
some passages of the Apocalyse, as an " angel." Four-
and-twenty elders, on their thrones, surround His, com-

268 SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE THREE ORDERS.
posing, so to speak, the crown of mankind, or rather
of the Church. (Rev. iv. i, &c.) Christ occupies His
throne, in the midst of this college of Gerontes or Pres
byters, as " Bishop " of entire Christendom. Peter
gives Him this title. ( i Pet. ii. 25 .) And it is not by
chance that the Apostles call themselves elders. ( 1 Pet.
v. 1 ; 2 John 1 ; 3 John i.) They are to the whole
Church, under Christ, what the elders are, for the par
ticular Church, under the angel. And thus each Church
is a miniature image of the universal, as seen by John
in vision. To this agree ancient testimonies, that, in
many Churches, a twelvefold eldership subsisted under
the bishop. Let us figure to ourselves an ancient
Christian basilica, with the throne of the bishop at the
extreme east, and the seats of the elders around on
each side of the altar, and we have the representation
of John's vision. We are not prepared to regard as
apostolic, in detail, the ideas of Dionysius the Areo-
pagite. But his leading idea, that the hierarchy on
earth is a representation of that in heaven, is, in its
essence, accordant with that of John.
There is yet another parallel to be noticed, viz., that
between the three grades in the Christian Church, and
the Levite, Priest, and High Priest among the Jews. Its
notice by the later fathers is of no importance. But
we -find it pointed at by Clement of Rome, in his
Epistle to the Corinthians, dated almost during the life
of John and full of apostolic reminiscences. In order
to restore order in that Church, he, after some moral
reflections, directs the Corinthians to the " depths of the
divine' gnosis," i. e. to the spiritual exposition of Old
Testament mysteries. " We must do all in fixed order
(ra|Et), because the Lord has appointed fixed times

SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF THE THREE ORDERS. 269
and places^ for all sacrifices and services, and fixed
persons who shall perform them. They who bring-
their offerings according to this rule, are graciously
accepted ; for, in following the ordinances of the Lord,
they do not offend. To the high priest are certain
holy services assigned. The priests have their proper
place given to them. The Levites have especial ser
vices. And the layman is bound by the rules for the
laity. Let each of you give thanks to God for his place,
without passing the fixed limits of his office." (Clem.
Rom. i. Ep. ad. Cor. ch. 40, 41.) This passage draws
the same parallel between the Mosaic and Christian
hierarchies as between the Mosaic and Christian rituals.
And the author proceeds to compare the place and
work of Moses, in the appointment of the Aaronic priest
hood, with those of Apostles, in that of the Christian-
(Clem. Rom. i. Ep. ad. Cor. c. 43.) What then more
natural, than to regard the gradations in the one hier
archy as prefiguring those in the other ? Nor can we
regard these ideas as erroneous by reason of their late
promulgation. There was a reason for the delay. The
subsistence of the Mosaic priesthood rendered unfit the
full development of the Christian. Had the latter
been at once developed, it would not only have pre
maturely removed the former, but would have run the
risk of being regarded, like the former, as an earthly
priesthood. When, however, the Aaronic priesthood
dissappeared, when the inclination to Mosaism was over
come, and the independent standing and peculiar cha
racter of the Church was vindicated ; the time had ar
rived, when the spiritual antitype of the Old Testament
type could appear, without being confounded with it.
That beautiful tradition as to John, which Clement

270 CALL AND ORDINATION.
of Alexandria has preserved (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 23)
gives us a picture of him, as ordering the Churches.
" When he had returned from Patmos to Ephesus, he
was wont to travel thence, as occasion demanded, into
the adjacent heathen districts, in order, in some places
to set bishops, in others to build up whole Churches, in
others to receive into the clerical order, one or more
of those who had been designated by the Spirit." The
words of this statement are those of Clement. But its
substance is ancient and genuine, and shows, how the
way of introduction into the ministry, indicated by the
pastoral Epistles and the Acts, was then still observed.
By the Spirit of Prophecy were men called to serve
God. By Apostles they received their consecration
and commission. To the same effect writes Clement of
Rome. " The Apostles while they preached in cities
and districts, set, as bishops and deacons of the believers,
the first fruits of their ministry, after they had been
proved by the Spirit." (Clem. Rom. i. Ep. ad. Cor. c.
42.) Here also we learn that the Spirit, in the Apostles
and their coadjutors, gave them supernatural light upon
the persons called to, and fitted for, office in the Church.
We have the explicit statement of the same witness,
Clement of Rome, that the apostolic institution to office
never took place without the consent of the whole flock.
The New Testament names a good testimony from the
brethren, as a condition of ministry.
We have already seen with what holy severity the
heads of the flocks exercised discipline under the
guidance of John. The same strictness characterized
the Church during the two following centuries. There
was little fear that the return of the fallen would be
made too easy. The inclination was rather to close

CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 27 I
the way of return. No question of conscience exer
cised the Church more, in times of persecution, than
this : whether they who had renounced their faith could
be ever again admitted to the holy mysteries ? The
Apostles had left no mechanical rules for discipline.
They had made no attempt to frame a casuistical hand
book or vade mecum. Such a device never could be a
substitute for the mind of Christ in the ruler. The
bishops were to have that mind, and to be guided by
the Holy Spirit, in judging where severity, and where
mercy, was in place. The Montanists and the Nova-
tians certainly exceeded, in refusing all reconciliation
to those once guilty of deadly sin. They were resisted
by the bishops of the Church, who believed that the
restoration of the fallen, in the compassion of God, was
possible, and that the Church had power to restore
even those who had committed deadly sin, when truly
penitent. In this contest, reference was made to the
example of John, in a case which seems to have been
preserved from oblivion on this very account, and is to
be found in the above-mentioned tradition by Clement
of Alexandria. John had, on a journey, recommended
to the bishop of a Church (probably Smyrna) a young
man, whom the bishop instructed and illuminated {i.e.
baptized). But, believing the young man to be suffi
ciently protected by the holy seal (of baptism),* the
bishop slackened in his watchfulness. The new convert
lapsed, by intercourse with companions, into evil ways.
He joined them in robberies and other crimes, and,
once misled, he was driven to extremity by despair of
salvation, and became the head of a band of despera-
* The snare of many who acknowledge, but misplace, Sacra
ments.— Tr.

272 RESTORATION OF THE LAPSED.
does. "John had, after some time, again occasion to
visit that Church ; and, after he had set all else in order,
he said to the bishop, ' Give me again that which Christ
and I in presence of the flock entrusted to thee.' The
bishop, conscience-smitten, confessed with tears, that the
young man was dead as to God. The Apostle rent his
garment, groaned heavily, smote his head, and desired
to be taken to the lost youth. He reached the place —
was seized by the robbers — asked to be taken to their
leader, — and, when the latter, recognizing him, drew
back with fear and shame, followed him, saying, ' Why,
O child, dost thou flee from thy father ? have pity
upon me ; fear not. Thou hast still hope of life ; I
will pray unto Christ for thee, and, if it must be, suffer
thy death, as Christ suffered for us. Stay — believe —
Christ hath sent me ! ' The youth looked on the
ground, threw away his weapons, trembled, wept
bitterly, and answered only with sobs. He was bap
tized a second time with his own tears. He held back
his right hand; but John seized and kissed it; for
asmuch as it was washed clean by repentance. John
led him to the church, and, after entreating for him
with many prayers, fasting with him in spiritual conflict;
and calming his spirit with many exhortations, he
did not leave till he had restored him. Thus was ex
hibited a great example of true penitence, and a
triumphant token of undeniable restoration." So runs
this story; which assuredly throws the clearest light
upon the nature of genuine repentance, paternal dis
cipline, and pastoral fidelity. .
Part of the order taken by John regarded the further
development and establishment of worship on ordinary
and festal occasions.

FEASTS AND FASTS. 273
Sunday was already observed. On that day John
received the Apocalypse in Patmos. (Rev. i. 9.) While
the companies of the faithful were celebrating the
Christian mysteries, heavenly visions were granted to
the Apostle in his solitary banishment, as an answer
to the prayers of the persecuted. The Egyptian Church
to this day celebrates the Sabbath along with the
Sunday, And the whole ancient Church, excepting
the Romish, honored it, by not suffering it to be a day
of fasting. Although freed from the prohibition to
work on that day, the Church still held fast the re
membrance of the original sanctity of the Sabbath — a
custom which cannot be of later origin than the Apostolic
age. There is no positive proof, yet every probability,
that Friday, the day of Christ's death, was already
observed as a fast, in contrast to the joy of the Sabbath
and Sunday. Monday and Thursday were the week
day fasts of the Jews. And it may well be conjectured
that, on the decay of the relation between the Church
and the synagogue, the two Christian weekly half fasts
came in their place. Be this however, as it may, it is
certain that John celebrated the annual fasts and
Easter. (Polycrates et Irenaeus ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v .
24.) Christ had said of his disciples, " How can the
children of the bride-chamber fast, while the bride
groom is with them ? But the days come, when the
bridegroom shall be taken from them ; and then shall
they fast." The annual return of that period was marked
by fasting, under the Apostles. Yet they seem to have
intentionally refrained from written prescriptions on
the subject. And hence might arise the variations,
mentioned by Irenaeus (Letter to Victor of Rome,
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24), that some fasted one day
T

274 DIFFERE.NCE CONCERNING EASTER.
(that of Christ's death), some two (Good Friday and
Saturday), some more (viz. the whole Passion Week,
for six days), some forty hours, day and night without
intermission (because Christ was holden for that time
in the bonds of death.) But another variation arose
under the eyes of the Apostles themselves, the recon
ciling of which, a century or two afterwards, cost much
trouble. In the Roman Church, the annual celebration
of Christ's death and resurrection was so ordered, that
the great week was the exact copy of the original week.
The great feast of the resurrection fell always upon a
Sunday, the first after the spring full moon, and was
preceded by Good Friday. For this arrangement the
authority of Peter and Paul was pleaded. And when
the question came to be discussed at the end of the
second century, this view was found supported by tra
dition, not only in the East, but also in Corinth, Alex
andria, Palestine, and Pontus. But the Churches of
Asia Minor had brought down another practice from
the time of their foundation. They kept the fourteenth
of Nisan as the day of Christ's death. It was the fixed
centre of their ecclesiastical year — the day on which
the Jews removed the leaven and prepared the Pass
over lamb. On the evening of this great day of
mourning the fasts were concluded, and the Christian
mysteries celebrated. This practice had nothing to do
with Judaizing tendencies. On the contrary, both the
mourning of the Christians was a direct contrast to the
preparations of the Jews for the feast, and their sub
sequent joy a contrast to the days of unleavened bread
and bitter herbs. And it was right that the Church
should mourn because the Jews had rejected Messiah,
while the latter were engaged in their principal feast.

DIFFERENCE CONCERNING EASTER. 275
The choice of the fourteenth day of the moon rested
rather on the endeavour to keep the day with all pos
sible accuracy, preferring the existing Jewish reckon
ing to an independent calculation by the course of the
stars or the Julian calendar. These Churches started
from the position that (as the Gospel of John shews,
and as was the general opinion of antiquity), Christ
died not on the fifteenth, but on the fourteenth of Nisan,
i.e. on the day of the typical Passover as the true
Paschal Lamb. And with this agrees the peculiar
custom of the Greeks to keep the Lord's Supper with
common, i.e. leavened bread ; because, according to
their view, Christ's last Supper, at which he instituted
the Eucharist, was not the Paschal Supper prescribed
by the law. The difference of practice in the use of
leavened and unleavened bread is probably also one
which dates as early as the Apostolic Age.
Thus was the foundation laid already for the Chris
tian cycle of festivals. And, although the reckoning of
the principal feast varied, yet the whole Church were
agreed on this, that they did not celebrate a typical
Mosaic feast, but one commemorative of the fulfilment
of the type in Christ. The facts had been so ordered
by God, as necessarily to exhibit the glorious counter
part of the simultaneous Jewish rites — the substance
along with the shadow. And it was a truly right and
apostolic ordinance, to refresh, by an annual feast, the
remembrance of that substance. We cannot prove that
Pentecost also was so early observed. But it was most
natural to make prominent the joy which followed the
resurrection, in contrast to the preceding sorrow ; and
Tertullian speaks of Pentecost as long observed. (De
Idolol. and De Cor. Mil.) T 2

276 CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.
As regards the worship of the Church, especially the
celebration of the Eucharist every Lord's day, we have
ground for believing, that, even at that early time, the
ritual was considerably developed and rendered uni
form, Pliny writes, that, in the generation immediately
succeeding John, the Churches in Bithynia, in their
solemn service on Sunday morning, raised an alternate
song to Christ as their God. This mode of singing-
was borrowed from the worship of the temple and the
synagogue. And the divine exaltation of Christ was
the subject of numerous private hymns. It is re
markable that this heathen judge should have recog
nized the divine worship offered to Christ as the essence
of Christian services. When, about two hundred years
after Christ, the heretic Artemon and his adherents at
Rome ventured the false assertion, that the belief in
Christ's divinity was a novelty, the doxologies and
hymns of the Church, at a period preceding all theolo
gical writings, could be cited against him. (Euseb. Hist.
.Eccl. v. 28.) It was not the manner of the apostolic
Church to impart dry details of doctrine to the under
standing, but to express holy truths in religious rites,
and to instruct the faithful in true worship, according to
a fixed ritual. In no other way could the belief in the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, have been
so deeply planted in the heart, and 'indelibly written
on the conscience of the Church. This faith is the
genesis of all worship ; and worship is the actual con
fession of Him who is over, through, and in, the wor
shippers. (Eph. iv. 6.)
The holy songs and prayers were not then delivered
in a written form to the Churches and their pastors.
As each Christian, at his baptism, received orally the

HYMNS AND LITURGIES. 277
Lord's Prayer and the Creed, to keep them in his
heart, so the priests were orally instructed as to
the celebration of the mysteries. Of this we have
the proper example in the Jewish mode of instruction
in the traditions of the fathers, which lasted for cen
turies, and no less so in the long continued oral tra
dition of the miracles of Christ. In this way only
could the sacred rites be shielded from profanation.
Nay, the heathen had already taken similar precautions
in celebrating their own profane mysteries. And the
preservation of truth in this way was much easier them
than it would be now ; for then, education was simple,
memory undistracted, authority great, and individu
ality confined — the very opposite of man's present
condition. It is a certain historical fact, that, down to the time
of Constantine, a discipline of reserve {disciplina ar-
cani), as to Christian worship, was maintained, by which
the rites were preserved both from deviation and from
profanation. Yet we have evidence enough of a much
greater fulness in worship under John than is generally
conceived by subjective churchless inquirers. Nay,
this conclusion is inevitable, if we consider, that the
Christian ordinances are a spiritual correlative to those
of the Old Testament, and a visible image of heavenly
realities. If, as we cannot doubt, the Church was then
thoroughly aware of this, her worship could not possibly
have rested in protestant indefiniteness and individual
taste Out of such beginnings we never should have
seen the rich rituals of Greece, Rome, and the East.
Apart from all the subsequent additions, errors, and
abuses in these rituals, there must have been in the
primitive worship, a full and definite substratum, to

2 7S HOLY BAPTISM.
which these additions could attach themselves, and ire
which these abuses could find their pretext. The Greek
and Latin mass could not, in thousands of years, have
grown out of a protestant meeting for hearing a sermon
and offering extemporary prayer.
All this justifies the conclusion that, in the notices
from the second and third centuries as to worship, and
in the ancient liturgies, although these may not have
been composed till the fourth century, much apo
stolic tradition is contained. In particular, those fun
damental features of arrangement, those prayers and
symbolical rites, in which East and West agree, have
a strong claim to be regarded as an apostolic
inheritance. Holy baptism was performed by submersion in the
sea or in other water. It took place with invocation of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost {i.e. in their
name). The baptism of men into, or in the name of„
Christ (Acts xix. 5, Rom. vi. 3), is not at variance with
the terms of Christ's own command. Nor can we say
that two diverse modes of baptism were simultaneously
practised, — the one in the name of Christ, — the other
in that of the adorable Trinity. The holy act is capable
of being described in one way more dogmatically, in-
another more liturgically ; with reference either to its
effects, or to its form. Luke and Paul do the former. But
they say nothing against the ritual. The efficacy of holy
baptism is one of the highest axioms of Christian an
tiquity, a matter of faith and experience to the Churchy
The most glorious descriptions of its operation are
found in the most ancient fathers. With them, it is
the washing away of past sins, the illumination, the
grafting into Christ, the regeneration, — nay, even

INFANT BAPTISM. 279
(which is going too far and interfering with another
and subsequent rite), the sealing. And, in the visions of
Hermas, we find the idea expressed, that the righteous
of the old time should yet receive the sacrament of
baptism from the departed Apostles, in the abode of
the departed, in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Hermas, Similit. ix. 16.) He knows not the primitive
Church, who thinks that she regarded reception into
the kingdom of heaven as possible without baptism.*
So much the more certain on this account is it, that
the custom of baptizing the infants of Christians was of
apostolic origin. That the apostolic Churches, believ
ing that the children of the faithful were not trans
planted into the kingdom of heaven by mere natural
birth, but needed generation, straightway gave them
baptism, and acknowledged its efficacy, is proved alike
clearly by the doctrine and by the practice of anti
quity. The question mooted in the African Council
under Cyprian, was not, whether children should be
-baptized, bnt whether they shonld not be so till the
eighth day, according to the law of circumcision, or
whether they might receive the grace earlier. The
Council was unanimous for the latter. There is no in
stance, in all Christian antiquity, in which the validity
of infant baptism was denied, or in which that sacra
ment was afterwards repeated on the ground of its
invalidity in infancy — not even among the heretics.
When the operation of the Spirit and the force of
Christian life decreased, and many devout Christians
believed that there was no forgiveness for deadly sins
* All who believe shall be saved. But the baptized alone are
members of and joint heirs with Christ. The least in the kingdom
is greater than John. — Tr.

280 INFANT BAPTISM.
after baptism, the feeling gained ground that it was
better to postpone baptism, lest the heavenly treasure
should be forfeited in the dangerous years of youth.
This was Tertullian's argument against the expediency,
not the validity, of infant baptism, after he became a
Montanist. (Tert. de Bapt. c. 18.) No one ever de
clared it invalid. Nay, the very apprehensions of such
persons evinced their firm conviction of its validity and
finality, in the case even of those newly born. History
affords the like confirmation, even if Origen had not
expressly testified, " The Church has received it from
the Apostles, that she should bestow baptism on the
little ones." (Origen, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. int.
Rufino. v. 9.)*
Immediately before receiving this mystical washing,
the catechumen was called upon to answer the solemn
question as to his faith, by repeating the Apostle's
Creed. " As in civil war," says Rufinus of Aquileia,
" the pass-word by which fellow combatants distin
guish each other from their enemies, is only orally
communicated, that it may not be abused, so does the
Church regard the Creed. Those who have received
another pass-word are heretics, and to be regarded as
enemies of the faith." (Ruf. Exp. Symb. init.) The
Creed really served this end. The fathers of the second
century looked upon it as the apostolic rule of faith,
entrusted to all Christians, even among barbarians, who
had as yet no translation of the Scriptures.f Whoever
departed from it was already judged, as one to whom
the faithful should not hearken. Rufinus adds, that the
* Irenaeus bears an indirect yet distinct witness to infant baptism
Adv. Ilaer. ii, 39. t Irenaeus adv. haer. iii, 4, 2.

THE APOSTLES' CREED. 28 1
Creed had been, as our ancestors have assured us,
composed by the Apostles in common, ere they sepa
rated into heathen lands. And we cannot see how they
oould avoid a preliminary ascertainment of that con
fession by which the candidate for baptism should
worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;
although we can no longer fix its date, and although the
original form was perhaps never used without enlarge
ment. Rufinus admits that the rise of new heresies led to
additions, out of which the slight diversity of the Greek,
the Aquileian, and the Roman Churches sprang ; but
adds, that the Romish Church has preserved the
unaltered form (as we now have it); because no heresy
arose in Rome, and because the unaltered maintenance
of the Creed was ensured there by its public use in the
meetings of the faithful.
Let us now transplant ourselves into the holy service
of the Christians on the Lord's day. The strictness of
its secrecy was regulated by the absence or presence of
persecution. But the very nature of the thing must of
itself have led to the primitive division into two parts —
the first of which was open to the catechumens, — the
second confined to the faithful. Hymns, prayers,
reading and exposition of Scripture — all similar to the
rites of the synagogue — formed the first part. The
words of the prophets, and the Gospels, were read
(Just. Mart. apol. i. c. 67) ; the former in the version
of the Seventy, which was held in high reverence by
the Christians, although the Jews disliked it, and, like
the Ebionites, endeavoured to obtain new and more
literal Greek translations. This public association of
the Gospels with books of confessed inspiration, was a
virtual acknowledgment of an equal authority. They

282 THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES.
did not receive this sanction all at once, but one after
the other ; first the Gospel of Matthew, which had been
written for the very purpose of public use, while those
of Mark and Luke had originally more a private-
character. Although Mark wrote long before, and
Luke simultaneously with, Matthew, yet their works
were not accepted among the divine records till after
the death of Peter and Paul. This is plainly the
reason for the order in which the Gospels stand in the
Canon, which all now admit to be not the order of their
composition, but which expresses the order of their
reception as canonical. Those of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, were already received, when John wrote his.
John's was from its first appearance clothed with apos
tolic authority, and intended for public use. Looking
both to its origin and to its contents it seems to deserve-
the precedence. And the plain reason for its standing
fourth, was that the other three had already been
publicly received in their present order. When the
number of the Gospels was concluded by that of John,
the Church accepted, as of apostolic authority, this four
fold document, and no other. The evangelists or
preachers who went forth under Trajan, delivered to-
the newly planted Churches these four Gospels as a
sacred record. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 37.)
But the second part also of the New Testament col
lection was already used in the Church at the end oF
John's time. "The Gospel" and "The Apostles,"
appear already in the Epistles of Ignatius, as the titles
of the two parts. (Ignatius, ad. Philad. c. 5.) Marcion,
whose heretical sect was a caricature of the Church,.
delivered to his followers a mangled form of the
Pauline Gospel by Luke, as the first part, and ten

THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 283
Epistles of Paul {i.e. all but the pastoral Epistles
and that to the Hebrews) with the title "The
Apostle," as the second part, of the Holy Scripture.
He, the son of the bishop of Sinope, belonged to the
second generation after John. That which he imi
tated, must have been already established in the Church
in the time of his father, i.e. in the first generation after
John. The Church had then in use the Epistles of
Paul, which appear to have been already collected
before the decease of their author. (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16.)
She had also, along with Luke's Gospel, received his
second book, the Acts. One Epistle of Peter and the
first of John (inseparable from his Gospel) were already
adopted. And the Apocalypse was from the first
admitted to occupy its place among the divine records.
All the works just enumerated were the " universally
and without contradiction acknowledged books,'' the
homologoumena of the primitive Church, according to
the report of Eusebius, in which he both sums up the
testimony of all preceding fathers, and gives the result
of his own investigations in the Christian libraries of
^Elia and Caesarea. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 25 ; vi. 20,
32.) These books formed, in the beginning of the
second century, that original New Testament Canon
which had acceptance in all the metropolitan Churches,.
even although not yet in every remote congregation.
Their number is twenty-one ; or, if one takes in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, then received by the whole
Eastern Church, twenty-two — exactly as many as the
canonical writings of the Old Testament, according to-
the Jewish reckoning.* The number of the Hebrew
alphabet, corresponding to that of the Old Testament
* Josephus adv. Apion. i, I. Origenes ap. Euseb. hist. eccl. vi, 25.

.284 THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES.
books, also varied between twenty-one and twenty-two.
This correspondence could be hardly accidental. It
seems to have been present to the minds of those who
watched over the framing of the Christian Canon. The
writings then put together formed so solid a phalanx,
that men shrank from adding to them, in the second
and third century, apostolic writings which came after
wards to light. The new authority of a Council, in
the fourth century, was necessary to invest the more
recently discovered documents with an equal sanction,
and thus enlarge the Canon to its present extent. We
know no longer in what order the books of the second
half of the primitive Canon, viz. thirteen or fourteen
Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, two Epistles
general, and the Apocalypse, stood in the manuscripts,
or were publicly read. So much is clear, that at a
time when the Church and the synagogue were not yet
rent asunder, and Israelites still stood at the head of
the Church, a two-fold reading from the New Testa
ment, the one from the " Gospel " the other from the
" Apostles " was introduced. As these two parts of
the New Testament correspond to the Law and the
Prophets in the Old, this double reading was an imi
tation of the custom in the synagogue, where a Parascha
(from the Pentateuch) and a corresponding Haphtara
(from the Prophets) were read aloud. And the two
readings out of the New Testament were probably
preceded by a reading out of the Old, in the primitive
Church.* At all events, a rich supply of Scripture
reading was afforded by the meetings of the faithful.
* Such was the ancient custom both in Gaul and in Spain
according to the Lectionarium Gallicanum et Mozarabicum.

THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 285:.
It was not left to private diligence to make the faithful
intimately acquainted with the Bible. And the mere
Sunday services did not suffice for this. Where circum
stances in any way allowed, the Church came daily
together. Thus was it originally in Jerusalem. (Acts
ii. 46.) And, even without more exact information on
the subject, one may be allowed to infer, that this
example was followed in every principal city.
We must still devote a few words to that highest and
holiest part of Christian worship, the Eucharist, which
formed the second part of the service on the Lord's
day. The administration of the holy communion was
only one side of this sacred rite. A no less important
and well ascertained constituent of it was the Eucharist
proper, which,' as its names indicates (Ignatius passim),
was an act of the most solemn thanksgiving, adora
tion, and dedication to God. Christ Himself had pre
faced the dispensation of the sacrament by that great
thanksgiving, which the Israelite father of the family
recited before communicating the cup at the Passover,.
and which embraced all the benefits of creation and
redemption. The sole difference between the schools
of Hillel and Shammai, at the time of our Lord, re
garded the question, whether the Passover thanksgiving
for the gift of wine, or that for the event of the day,
should have the precedence. (Mischnah Tractat.
Pesachim x. 2.) Both formed elements of the Christian
thanksgiving prayer before the consecration of the
bread and the wine. So runs the report of Justin
Martyr. And all the ancient liturgies contain the main
features of this prayer, which was called the " Preface "
{Prtzfatio). It is past all doubt, that the Church, at the
end of the Apostolic age, was found believing in the real

286 THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
presence of the body and blood of the risen Christ in the
holy sacrament. Ignatius bears witness against heretics
of his day who did not believe this truth, (Ignat. ad
Smyrn. c. 7,) the very persons who denied the
incarnation. And the oldest liturgies agree with the
expressions of the fathers in representing this holy rite
as a sacrifice — which they unanimously regard also as
the fulfilment of the prophecy by Malachi (Mai. i. 11),
that, when the Lord should reject the Mosaic sacrifice,
incense and a pure offering should be brought unto
His name, among all nations.* Hymns of praise,
prayers, and earthly gifts brought by the Church as
symbols of her own dedication, were, according to the
testimonies from the second century, the subjects of this
offering or sacrifice. These do not expressly say, that
the heavenly element of the sacrament, Christ's body
and blood, was also offered, as later authorities state,
and as the liturgical documents of antiquity show.
And this is not the place to enquire whether the
Eucharistic sacrifice, in this special sense, is scrip
tural or not. We believe it to be so, and we cannot
doubt that it was transacted in the time of John. And
the silence of the primitive apologists and other writers,
on the subject, so far from surprising us, is the very
thing to be expected, from their own holy awe, and
from their prudent precautions against exposing the
highest Christian mystery to profanation, and against
tempting those without, who might read their writings,
to the sin of misconstruction and blasphemy.
This mystery was not a repetition of that atoning
sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross. It pointed
to a heavenly act and future worship. Christ Himself
* Irenaeus. adv. haer, iv, 32,

THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 287
.has given to the Eucharist a prophetic import connected
with the glory of His kingdom. (Matt. xxvi. 29.) A
fragment attributed to Irenaeus (Iren. Fragm. ed. Pfaff.
1715, p. 25), contains the following, "Those, who have
pursued their enquiries into the second directions of
the Apostles, know, that the Lord has instituted a new
sacrifice under the new covenant, according to the
words of the prophet Malachi." These " second
•directions," are probably contrasted with the directions
given by the Apostles, on the first planting of the
Church, when she did not yet exhibit the full develop
ment of New Testament worship as a sacrificial act.
And nothing appears more natural, than that this great
element of truth should not be practically unfolded, till
the Mosaic sacrifices were completely abolished, and
till the heavenly priesthood of Christ, for and in the
Church, was clearly brought to light by apostolic expo
sition, such as we find in the Epistle to the Hebrews
and in the Apocalypse.*

The influence of John advanced the Churches of Asia
beyond all others, not only in knowledge, but in ec
clesiastical consciousness and holy rites. But we can-
* Although the offering in some ancient liturgies is apparently
confined to the yet unconsecrated creatures, yet their offering plainly
stretched over that subsequent consecration by which they confessedly
became the body and blood of Christ. And as Christ was not only
the first fruits of humanity, but the very Word of God in one person,
so were the first fruits of the creatures identified with the body and
blood of Christ, in one offering. This view Irenaeus states at large
(Irenssus adv. Haer. iv. 32, 33, 34). — Tr.

288 THE SANHEDRIN RESTORED.
not conclude our sketch of the Apostolic age, without
putting together whatever may with tolerable certainty
be ascertained, as to the other principal Churches, in
Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, at the
same period.
A land so rich in resources as ancient Palestine, was
able to recover itself considerably, even within one de
cennary after its desolation. The fugitives returned.
The soil afforded to the diminished number of the
inhabitants abundant means of support. They were
soon able to revive social and ecclesiastical communi
ties, and restore a measure of order. Palestine enjoyed
rest under the emperors of the Flavian house, Vespasian,
Titus, and Domitian. The Jews improved the oppor
tunity. Their political power was gone. Their zealots
were dead. The abolition of worship left the high-
priesthood without influence. But so much the more
did the scribes rise into importance, as the preservers
of all sacred reminiscences. Meditation on the law of
the Fathers was the comfort of the abased, the sole
possession left to the people. Every care was taken
for the preservation and exposition of their laws and
traditions. Gamaliel the second, grandson to Gamaliel
I., whom we know from the Acts, and Jochanan Ben
Saccai had escaped death at the destruction of Jerusa
lem. With them began a series of highly esteemed
founders of schools and teachers of the law. In Jamnia,
where, before the war began, the power of Sanhedrin
had been exercised, Gamaliel gathered seventy of his
adherents into a fresh Sanhedrin, over which he presided
as Nasi (prince), or, as foreigners afterwards called it,
Patriarch, and which exercised spiritual, nay, although
without Roman sanction, civil jurisdiction over the

THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 289
Jews. Jochanan's disciples founded new schools, like
that at Lydda, over which the next president was the
Rabbi Akiba. The Jewish settlers in Palestine paid
tithes to these teachers of the law.* Meanwhile, the
Christians restored their Churches in Judaea, Samaria,
and Galilee. Of the Christian population, part may
have remained throughout in the north. The majority
of those who fled returned from Peraea to Jerusalem.
And some remained behind in their new homes, at
Pella, Cocabe, and the Syrian Bercea. We do not find
that very many Jews were led by the judgment on
their sanctuary to join the Church. This was much
more the case after their second sad overthrow under
Hadrian. Our chief information concerning the time of which
we now treat, relates to the appointment of a successor
to S. James. Eusebius says (Hist, Eccl. iii. u):
" The tradition subsists, that, after the martyrdom of
James, and the subsequent conquest of Jerusalem, those
Apostles and disciples of the Lord, who were still in
life, gathered together from all quarters, and along
with them the blood relatives of the Lord, of whom
several survived. These all took counsel as to who was
worthy to be the successor of James, and unanimously
voted, as worthy of the Jerusalem episcopate, Simeon,
the son of that Clopas whom the Gospel mentions, and
a cousin of the Lord. According to the statement of
Hegesippus, that Clopas was a brother of Joseph."
This whole statement by Eusebius is probably taken
from Hegesippus, a credible witness. Simeon then
held the bishopric for a whole generation, as we
learn from the above source (Hegesip. ap. Euseb. Hist.
* Ewald Gesch. d. V. Israel vii. p. 34 — 45.

29O SIMEON BISHOP OF JERUSALEM.
Eccl. iii. 32), and died by martyrdom under Trajan,
at the age of 120 years. Thus, we find, again, side by
side, a Jewish synagogue and a Christian Church, a
Jewish Sanhedrin and a Christian Council. We see
how important was the appointment of a bishop, espe
cially that of one for Jerusalem. The seat had re
mained vacant for a time. Men felt that its occupant
should be appointed by the Apostles. Of them we do
not know that any were still in life, save John, Andrew,
and Philip. These three, therefore, and Judas, the
brother of James, were all whom we know to have had
part in that remarkable Council. We know nothing of
any fresh determinations to which it came as to the
relation of the Judaeo-Christian Churches to the law or
to the Gentile Churches. But we do know the conduct
of Simeon and his successors ; and have good ground
to conclude, that it had the sanction of the surviving
Apostles. Simeon had thirteen succesors, " all of Jewish descent,
but in possession of the true knowledge of Christ, so that
they were thought worthy of the episcopate by those
competent to try them " {i. e. by prophetic and apostolic
men). " Their whole Church consisted of Jews." This
series reached only to the second siege of Jerusalem
under Hadrin. "Tradition says that the life of each
was very short." Eusebius, from whom we learn all
this (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 5), could no longer make out
their years. But he has given us their names: viz.,
Justus, Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benjamin, John, Matthias,
Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephres, Joseph, and Judas,
the last of the successors of James. It appears as if
some of them must have governed the Church contem
poraneously with the aged Simeon, as his helps. And

HEBREW AND GREEK CHURCHES IN UNITY. 2gl
'perhaps the names of bishops elsewhere in Palestine
may have crept into the list.
The Church at Jerusalem did not lay aside its
Israelite character till the end of Hadrian's reign. The
Jewish Churches had long since, in obedience to the
exhortations in the Epistle to the Hebrews, renounced
the Mosaic sacrifices, priesthood, and sanctuary. But
they had preserved the distinctive customs of the Jews,
•e. g. the keeping of the Sabbath, circumcision, and
abstinence from things unclean. And yet they were
in communion with the Greek Churches, standing with
them under the same supreme authority, that of the
-surviving Apostles. John must have approved, at least
allowed, their manner of life. Along with their
Mosaic customs they had essentially the same faith and
worship as the other Churches, and, as Sulpicius
Severus says, " believed in Christ as God, with obser
vance of the law." (Sulp. Sev. Hist. Sacr. iii. c. 45.)
They thus united things, which the superficial, or the
dead formalist, would deem irreconcilable. And they
could then do so as well as the present Ethiopians
now do, who hold circumcision as well as baptism ; or
as the Nestorians in Kurdistan, who, in part, still observe
literally the Mosaic distinctions between clean and
unclean, and use the Pentateuch as their civil law.
In after centuries, indeed, the doctors of the Greek and
Latin Churches, actuated by the tendency to enforce
dead uniformity, denounced such a union. But the
Apostles were in a position, which enabled them to re
cognize such variations in two divisions of the Church,
without thereby affecting in the least its essential unity
and vital harmony* John and his fellow-laborers
* The harmonious binding together of two such diverse elements
U2

292 HEBREW AND GREEK CHURCHES IN UNITY.
demanded of the Churches in Palestine, even after the-
fall of Jerusalem, no more than Paul and Barnabas had
formerly required of them. That internal emancipation
from Judaism which these Churches had attained to
formerly, was held sufficient in the circumstances. The
Jewish Christians, acknowledging the validity of baptism
in heathens, were not forced to deny that they them
selves were Israelites ; perhaps from a lingering hope
of Israel's conversion, and an unwillingness to sever the
last bond. For the same reason may John, and the
other guides of the Catholic Church, have abstained
from pressing on these Christians the acknowledgment
of Paul as their Apostle, and the reception of his
writings among their sacred books. On the same
principle as that on which- the Greek and Latin-
Churches were not pressed to the reception of the
Epistle of James, it was held enough that Paul's-
apostleship to the Gentiles should be acknowledged by
these Jewish Christians. The matter stood otherwise
with the writings of Peter and John. We do not know
how far the Hebrew congregations used them. Yet it
as the Hebrew and Gentile congregations into one Church, and the
prevention of heresy and schism during the lifetime of the
Apostles, strikingly prove how superior in power, enlargement and
blessing, the Apostolic office is to the episcopal, and how impossible
it is for the latter, although many functions of the former have
devolved upon it, to claim identity with the former, or ability now
to re-unite, develope, and perfect the Church. The same episcopal
government which, under Apostles, is necessary to keep every flock
up to the progress of the whole, must, when standing alone, either
foster schism, or substitute dead uniformity for living unity, and
thus mar the development of the body in all its various forms.
What, under Apostles, works completion, under Bishops, works-
division. — Tr.

RISE OF HERESIES AMONG THE HEBREWS. 293
is a remarkable fact that the Gospel of John did exist in
a Hebrew translation (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 3 and 6);
although there is not proof of its public use. The
Hebrew Churches used their own Hebrew gospel, which
had that of Matthew for its basis. Their descendants
afterwards committed the error of substituting, for the
four-fold Gospel, that Hebrew work filled up with a
variety of additions, some correct, some erroneous. But
even then this Gospel of Hebrews or Nazarenes,
although not received as canonical, was not denounced
as heretical.
Until the time of Simeon, the Palestine Church, re
mained, as Hegesippus, its historian, says, free from
heresy. " Therefore," says he, " they called the Church
a virgin, because she had not been corrupted by false
doctrine. But, when Simeon had been appointed,
Thebuthis" (a name which occurs in Josephus also),
" began to sow secret evil, because he had not been
made bishop. He was one of the seven Jewish sects
among- the people, from whom have proceeded Simon
and the Simonians, Cleobios, and Dositheos, the Gor-
thaeans and Masbotheans, and also the Menandrians,
the Marcionites, and Carpocratians, Valentinians, Basil-
lidians and Satornilians, of whom each party sought
to introduce its own views. From these have come
false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who have
rent the unity of the Church, by corrupt doctrines
against God and His Christ." (Hegesipp. ap. Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. iv. 22.) Hence it appears that Hegesippus
saw, in the Jewish sectarianism, the fruitful mother of
all Christian heresies, first the heresiarchs of the first
century, then, mediately through them, all the heretical
sects which sprang up in the second century, and en-

2Q4 RISE OF HERESIES AMONG THE HEBREWS.
dangered the Church in the time of Hegesippus. In-
his catalogue of these Jewish parties, the authors of such-
evil, he names, remarkably enough, in the first place,
the Essenes (as a proof that he and his brethren were
not of that sect) then the Galilaeans (followers of
Judas Galilaeus), Hemerobaptists (who practised daily
washings), Masbothaeans (unknown), and finally, Sama
ritans, Sadducees and Pharisees. Equally clear is it,.
that, according to him, there had as yet no heresy
arisen openly under Simeon's government at Jerusalem.
The Church therev remained uncontaminated (as Euse
bius also infers) till the time of Trajan, i.e. till Simeon's
death. From that time forward, however, the Hebrew
Churches, in Palestine and Syria, were more visited by
the calamity of heresy and schism than any others.
We must here, for connection's sake, glance in antici
pation at the state of things in Palestine, during the
second century. We find in the second and third
centuries, the Greek Church extended and established
in Palestine, with its metropolis at Caesarea. We
know, from the best authority, when and how a Greek
Church with a Gentile bishop without Mosaic customs,.
arose in Jerusalem, or rather ^Elia. This took place
after the second Jewish war. When Hadrian forbade
the Jews to touch the soil of Jerusalem, a part of the
Hebrew Christians returned to ^Elia from Peraea, re
linquished the customs of their forefathers, and chose a
Gentile Christian, Mark, as their head. With Judas
the series of Hebrew bishops had closed. With Mark
began that of the Gentile bishops of /Elia. (Euseb. Hist.
Eccl. iv. 6.) Along with the Greek Church, which
numbered in Palestine thirty-nine bishoprics, appeared
the totally distinct sects of the Ebionites and Nazarenes.

EBIONITES AXD NAZARENES. 295
The former were undeniably heretics, and were divided
into two sects, the one of Pharisaic, the other of Essene,
origin and principles. The Nazarenes, as described
by Jerome, were small Christian Churches in the
vicinity of the Jewish synagogues of Syria ; which,
although in essentials orthodox, retained still, in the
fifth century, the Jewish customs ; and, while acknow
ledged neither by Jews nor by Christians, regarded
themselves as being both. They did not adhere to the
traditions of the Pharisees. They acknowledged Paul
as God's instrument for the conversion of the heathen.
They could not be justly condemned as heretics. And
yet they were not in communion with the Catholic
Church, and occupied an ecclesiastical position corres
ponding to that of their " Gospel " towards the canoni
cal books. There are no tidings of their later history.
These last remnants of the Hebrew Churches have
entirely disappeared.
Let us now return to the end of the first century,
when all this had not occurred ; when the Hebrew
Churches had holy bishops, were free from corruption,
and stood in Catholic communion. If it be asked, how
things became so altered in the second, century, the
answer is not difficult. As long as the Church stood
under Apostolic rule, the unity of its two parts was
maintained, in spite of their diversity in rites. But in
the course of a generation after John, when there was
no more apostolic guidance, that unity became exposed
to breach. It became uncertain what should be done
with the faithful from Israel, after the second destruction
of Jerusalem, a.d. 136. The right light and the highest
tribunal were no longer to be had, as at the first des
truction. No certain and catholic guidance was held

296 EBIONITES AND NAZARENES.
out. Each party was left to itself. One continued the
observance of Mosaic customs ; another merged itself
in the rest of the Church. A schism thus arose ; for
the discrepancy was no longer as harmless as under
the sanction and bond of a higher and single authority.
Each party had its own share in the guilt of widening
the breach ; the one by blind reluctance against deve
lopment ; the other, like the Greek Church at large, by
recklessly insisting on uniformity. Those remaining in
Perasa and Syria suffered most. Separated by customs
and language from other Christians, they retained
indeed the ceremonies and the name of their illustrious
ancestors, the first disciples of Christ ; but they withered
more and more. And, as the unity of the Church
suffered, so did the protection of these Hebrew
Churches against the Ebionite heresy disappear, when
the apostolic office ceased. The leaven of Jewish per
version penetrated the Churches. Jewish heresies as
sumed a Christian garb. Ebion of Cocabe may, in
spite of the opposite opinion of the moderns, have
been a historical person. He is said to have arisen,
although with only moderate success, on the revival of
the Church in Palestine, after the first destruction of
Jerusalem. (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 2, 3.) His followers,
the ordinary Ebionites, rejected not only the divinity of
Christ, but His birth of the Virgin, maintaining that He
was the son of Joseph, anointed as Messiah because of
His moral worth ; in short, transferring the ordinary
Pharisaic doctrine regarding Messiah to Christ. They
held also, like the Pharisees, to the letter of the law.
The rise of the gnostic Ebionites, again, is associated
with the name of a certain Elchasai, who appeared
under Trajan, when the Essenes gave up their enfeebled

EBIONITES AND NAZARENES. 297
attachment to the Jews, and formed a new Christian
sect. This is the sect, which sought to set up a hereti
cal imitation of the true Catholic Church ; which abused
by spurious writings the venerated names of James,
Peter, Clement of Rome, and others ; which extended
its secret operations to other parts of the globe ; and
which has wrought such confusion in both ancient
history and modern inquiry. While all Ebionites were
proud to be thought Jewish Christians, the Essene
Ebionites differed in having more Greek education, and
in distinguishing between the human and the divine in
the Old Testament. Although they had nobler ideas
of Christ, as the great prophet, than the others, yet
they had no full persuasion of His Godhead, or of the
existence of the adorable Trinity. They were all alike
enemies of Paul's doctrine, although their own views
became altered and subdued. The name, common to
all — " Ebionites," i.e. poor, — which the fathers applied
to their poor ideas of Christ, they expounded as ex
pressing, that they were followers of the first Christians,
in their community of goods and voluntary poverty.
It is not surprising that, in other chief seats, at once of
Judaism and of Christianity, such as Rome, the same
phenomena appeared, and attained a certain develop
ment; although, during the life of John, and the
episcopate of Simeon, it was kept in check.

Let us now turn to the Syrian Church, and first to
its metropolis, Antioch. This regal city of the Seleu-
cidae, the second city in the Roman empire in point

298 THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH.
of size, had, for the vast majority of its inhabitants,.
those who spoke Greek. Here the heathen learnt first
to distinguish the Church from the Synagogue. And
here first did the disciples receive from the heathen
around them the name " Christians." Originally the
Church in Antioch stood under the apostolate for
Israel. It is no mere fabrication, that its first bishop,
Euodius, received his consecration, although perhaps,.
only that to priesthood, from Peter. (Euseb. Hist.
Eccl. iii. 22.) If Peter be said for seven years to have
been bishop of Antioch, this can mean no more than
that previous to the development of the episcopate out
of the apostolate, the flock was under the personal pro
tection and guidance of Peter. After the appearance
qfthe apostleship to the heathen, this Church stood
under Paul. And, when both apostleships were repre
sented by that of John, we cannot suppose that his-
influence left Syria untouched. The messengers to the
heathen had come from Antioch to Asia Minor. And
there was certainly so intimate a spiritual and ec
clesiastical connection between Antioch and Ephesus,.
that Antioch must have been afterwards set in order
after the model of the seven Churches in Asia.
Ignatius, successor of Euodius, was then bishop at
Antioch. Eusebius could not determine the year of
his accession. Neither can we. Therefore we can
not answer the question, by whom he was instituted.
Of the ancients, some said Peter, some said Paul, others
John. We rather conjecture that Euodius was set by
Peter, and that Ignatius, having been ordained elder
by Paul, was made bishop by John. It was probably
under him that the faithful felt their share of that vio
lent persecution of the Jews, which Josephus describes,..

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH. 299
(Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 9 [21 J.) The persecution
under Domitian certainly occurred in his time, as he
was cotemporary with Simeon of Jerusalem and Clement
of Rome. All three died under Trajan. The martyr
dom of Ignatius is a historical fact, whether the extant
account of it is a later fabrication or not. Condemned
to the beasts and brought to Rome, he suffered that
death which has glorified him in the eyes of Christen
dom. Eusebius places it in the year 107. But, if it
is true, that Trajan himself, when in Antioch, passed
sentence upon him, we must bring it down to the year
of the great earthquake, i.e. a.d. 115, when one third
of that capital of Syria was destroyed.
Even supposing that only those three of the Epistles
of Ignatius are genuine, which we find in a Syrian/
translation and in an abridged form, i.e. those to Poly-
carp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans ; these are
quite sufficient to justify our remarks, as to the stamp
of John, which the Church at Antioch under Ignatius
bore. In them we find Ignatius in full spiritual com
munion with Polycarp of Smyrna, the disciple of John,.
to whom Ignatius addresses the exhortation, " Know
thou the times. Wait upon Him who is elevated above
this time, the Eternal, Invisible, who for our sakes
became visible, the Incomprehensible and Impassible,
who for our sakes became capable of suffering, who
has in every way suffered all for us ; " — words quite akin
to the doctrine of John, concerning Christ. Equally
clear is his acknowledgment of the ecclesiastical order
set by John, " Have regard to the bishop, that God
also may have regard to you. I pledge my soul for
those who submit to the bishop, the elders, the deacons.
With them may my lot be in God." A still clearer

300 EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS.
proof would lie in the contents of his seven Greek
Epistles, if we could quote them without scruple. And
we should certainly do this, were we sure that we
possess them exactly a6 Eusebius knew and recognized
them ; for he, most probably, had them from that
library belonging to the see of Caesarea, which con
tained the official episcopal correspondence. The three
Syrian Epistles are liable to the suspicion of being, not
an older text, but a mere excerpt from the seven
genuine Epistles ; for the other writings in the same
manuscripts appear to be excerpts. (" Some Frag
ments of Ancient Syrian Divines." Bunsen, Ep. of
Ignat, 1847, P- J6.) But, on the other hand, the
doubts as to the genuineness of the seven Epistles, as
known since the time of Usher, are not all resolved.
No manuscript has been found which contains only
those seven which Eusebius attests — a manuscript
such as he must have had before him. The manu
scripts which contain the text pleaded for by the
Romanists and Episcopalians, embrace also the later
additional spurious Epistles. And this induces the
fear lest some things may have been interpolated into
the seven ancient Epistles also. Therefore, in con
sidering what Ignatius himself taught, we abstain from
appealing to the seven Epistles, although persuaded
that they contain no anachronism, and that the doc
trines and rites there noticed, actually belonged to
the time of Trajan. Instance — the warnings against the
Docetae and Judaists — the repeated mention of the
Saviour as God — the exhortation to do nothing with
out the bishop, and to follow the bishop as Christ, and
the presbyters as Apostles.*
* An argument for the genuineness of such passages lies in the

MARTYRDOM OF IGNATIUS. 3OI'
The influence of Ignatius depended in no small
degree on his agreement with Polycarp, as a follower
of John ; because, as the apostolic office disappeared,
the primitive Church longed for men of similar autho
rity. The remarkable expressions of humility in the
Epistles of Ignatius, arose from his observing, that the
other bishops were disposed to elevate the metropolitan
of Syria, a prisoner for Christ's sake, into a place which
belonged to Apostles alone, and from his desire to cor
rect such an exaggeration. And an important circum
stance, in confirmation of this view, is the historical
tradition, that the bishops and elders of the neighbour
ing Churches came to the prisoner on his way to
Rome, " in order to receive a share of spiritual endow
ment." (Martyr. Ignat. c. 3.) The number of those
who had received their ordination and endowment
from the Apostles themselves had already very much
decreased. Ignatius wrote to the Roman Christians : " I die
gladly for God, if ye will only not hinder me. Let
me be the prey of those beasts, by which it is
vouchsafed to me to become partaker of God. I am
God's grain of wheat ; and shall be bruised by the
teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found pure
bread of God. Rather encourage the beasts, that they
may become my grave and leave nothing of my body,.
that I may not in my death be a burden to any. Then
shall I be indeed a disciple of Christ, when the world
beautiful parallel which they draw between each particular
Church, and the Church universal, of which it is a visible symbol -r
each complete in itself, yet the former only as part of the great
whole, at the head of which stands no mere man, but the Bishop of
souls Himself, with Apostles as elders, — Tr.

302 MARTYRDOM OF IGNATIUS.
shall not see even my corpse. Intreat the Lord that
I may by these instruments be found an offering untc
God. Not as Peter and Paul do I command you.
They are Apostles. I am a condemned one. They are
free. I am hitherto a servant. But when I shall have
suffered, I shall be a freed man of Christ, and be raised
again in Him as a free one. And if the beasts will not
devour me, I will constrain them. Let fire and cross —
anything come upon me, if I may only be partaker of
Christ. I am nigh unto birth. My love (for all that
passeth away) is crucified. There is in me no more
fire of lust after that which is earthly. I delight no
longer in food that perisheth, nor in the pleasures of
this life. I long for the bread of God, which is the
flesh of Christ, and for His blood as drink — which is
love that passeth not away.'' (Ign. ad. Rom. passim.)
This confidence forsook him not in death. His desire
was accomplished. By his fiery longing for martyrdom
he was elevated to be a sacred ideal for the primitive
Church. It is easy to say, that the desire for martyr
dom, which was so frequent and so highly prized of
old, exceeded the measure of the followers of Christ,
and degenerated into a fanatical purpose. Instead of
indulging in such censure, it would better befit us to
admire that aspiration after perfection which found
its expression in those who courted martyrdom, and
especially in Ignatius. Such desire was truly apostolic
in them. And we cannot forget that, not only the means
of sanctification, but the full light as to the right way of
holiness, were already on the decrease. If it was felt
that the Church was no longer constantly increasing in
preparation for the kingdom, if she no longer supplied
her children with all that their hearts desired, what

THE SYRIAN CHURCH. 303
was more natural than to seek perfect assimilation to
Christ in heroic sacrifice for Him ? He had Himself
called His sufferings a baptism, a consecration to per
fection, which He had to undergo. The thirst for
jnartyrdom is a sign, on the one hand, of decaying
hope in Christ's return, and of increasing weakness in
the Church, but on the other hand, of ardent individual
desire after the prize of our calling.
Antioch was the mother Church {jxn-poicoXn), both of
the Greeks in the neighbourhood, and of the Syrians, to
a great distance. Although the Greek tongue and lite
rature had for centuries pervaded Syria, yet its ancient
population, especially in the rural districts, constituted
a compact body, with its Semitic language, its heathen
rites, and its many Jewish colonies. And this was
especially the case to the east, beyond the Euphrates.
There were probably still remains of the ten tribes on
the upper Tigris. And there was, perhaps, no foreign
land, except Egypt, in which the Jews were so largely
scattered, as in the country of the two streams, down to
the ancient Babylon. The influence of the Jews on
the inhabitants, in preparing the way of the Gospel, was
increased by the similarity of Hebrew and Syriac,
which rendered a communication of Old Testament
doctrines very easy. All these circumstances led to
the very early appearance of what may be called a
national Church, in that great district to the west of
Persia, and the south of Armenia, — a Church as com
pact, extensive, and independent of the Greek Church,
as was that of Italy. Under Trajan, Mesopotamia
had been the theatre of the great war against the Par-
thians. For a time the contest ceased. The Parthians
ruled to the Euphrates. Christianity had liberty to

3O4 THE SYRIAN CHURCH.
spread itself. The Apostles Thomas and Thaddaeus
visited Syria. The Syrian princes of Edessa were the
first converted rulers. The second century witnessed
the rise of a celebrated school of Jewish scribes in
Nisibis, as it were a rival to the Christian institutions.
The Christian teachers were the deliverers of the
Syrian nationality from Greek oppression, and the
first promoters of moral and literary culture. The
whole Syrian literature, historical and poetic, owes
its existence to Christianity. Its first exhibition lay
in the ancient accurate translation of the Bible (the
Peschito), made for use in public worship. This great
work dates in the second century, at least as early as
the ancient Latin translation made in the West (the
Itala). Yet we cannot quite agree with certain orien
talists who have placed its origin in the very beginning
of the second, or even in the first, century ; because
the corresponding fruits of Christian literature in Greece
did not appear till at least the middle of the second ;
and because we cannot doubt, that, in the Syrian
Churches, there was no lack of persons, who, knowing
Greek, were able to impart by oral translation to the
natives, the Christian doctrines and writings, which
came thither in Greek. The Syrians spread the truth
to Armenia and Persia, and partly to Arabia. But
their Church history begins too late to inform us how
far this had been effected in the first century.
If we consider the importance of the Jewish settle
ments in Syria, and the fact that Paul never proceeded
beyond Antioch, we may expect to find, both in the
views and in the rites of the Syrians, more Mosaic
elements than among the Greeks. Their later history
confirms this. The whole Nestorian system, to which

THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH. 305
the majority were devoted, bears traces of their
peculiar origin. So much the more remarkable is it,
that we find them, from the first down to the fifth
century, in perfect harmony of creed and communion
with the Greek and Roman Churches. Hence it is
evident, that the Apostles to Israel laid essentially the
same foundation in Syria, as Paul in Asia Minor. Nor
did the Christians of the distant East remain behind
that measure of development to which John brought
the Greeks. The bond of connection was probably
Antioch.

As to Alexandria and Egypt our information from
the Apostolic age is peculiarly scanty. Yet we have
the series of Alexandrian bishops, reaching like a
genealogy up to the times in which other historical
sources fail us. Annianos, Abilios, and JJCerdon, were
the bishops down to Trajan ; the first from 62 to 85,
the second from 85 to 98, the third from 98 to 1 10.
(Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 24; iii. 14, 21.) Annianos,
whose name is probably a corruption of Hananiah,
and who was, if so, an Israelite, was, as uniform tra
dition bears, appointed by Mark. One authority states
that Abilios was appointed by Luke. We find no trace
of the personal labors of these bishops. ' But we have
information, as to the constitution of the Egyptian
Church, which mediately throws light upon the time of
its foundation. "In Alexandria," says Jerome, "the
elders, from Mark the Evangelist down to the bishops
Heraklas and Dionysius, were in the. habit of electing,
on every vacancy, one of their number, and naming v

306 THE ALEXANDRIAN BISHOPS.
him as bishop, as when the army makes an emperor,
or the deacons select one of their number whose merit
they know, and call him to be archdeacon." (Jerome,
Ep. 101, [al. 85] ad Evangel.) Hence, while elsewhere,
in the third, nay, already in the second century, it was
held that none but bishops could consecrate a bishop,
and that two were necessary to the act, as repre
sentatives of the whole episcopate (according to the
first of the so called apostolical canons) in Alexandria,
not only the election (which would have been less
extraordinary), but the consecration and institution
were performed by elders — by those of the city. This
exception leads to the conjecture that there were at that
period no neighbouring bishops to appoint the metro
politan. And this conjecture is supported by the
following testimony from the Patriarch Eutychius of
Alexandria, a later witness, but one who, in this thing
(of which he might hear from his predecessors), is a
credible one: "Mark set along with the Patriarch
Hakaniah, twelve elders, in order that, on a vacancy in
the patriarchate, they might elect one of their own
number, on whose head the other eleven laid their
hands, to bless him and make him patriarch ; where
upon they chose another person, and set him as elder
in the place of him who had been raised to be
patriarch, that the number might continue twelve. And
this arrangement lasted till the time of Alexander, who
appeared at the Nicene Council. He forbade the elders
to elect the patriarch any longer, and fixed that, on
the death of the patriarch, the bishops should come
together to consecrate his successor, who might be
chosen either from among the twelve elders or else
where. As to the question, why the patriarch of

THE ELDERS OF ALEXANDRIA. 307
Alexandria was called Papas, which means, ' Father
of the elders ;' be it known that, from Hakaniah, whom
Mark set, down to Demetrius the eleventh in order,
there were no bishops in the provinces of Egypt, and
the patriarchs who preceded him had appointed none.
He was the first Alexandrian patriarch who set bishops.
Heraklas, his successor, set twenty." (Eutych. Patr-
Alex. Annal. int. Edw. Pocock. Oxon. 1658, i. p. 331.)
This peculiarity of the Egyptian Churches can only
be traced from a regulation in the Apostolic age. There
must have been then already a considerable number of
congregations, not only in Egypt, but in Pentapolis or
Cyrenaika, pertaining thereto. But there was only
one bishop who had jurisdiction over them and their
elders. This forms a striking contrast to the case of
Africa, where about a.d. 200, we find seventy bishops
in one Council at Carthage, and see the gradual rise of
six or seven hundred small bishoprics. In the one
country, a bishop for every flock — in the other, a single
bishop for a whole land. And it is observable that, at
the planting of the Church in Ethiopia, which took
place from Egypt in the time of Athanasius, the ancient
Egyptian custom was in one respect at least followed.
Indeed it appears to be so at the present day. A
single bishop, called Abuna, i.e. " our father,'' governs
the whole Church. All other clergy are mere elders.
The first abuna received his consecration from Athana
sius. And, to this day, when elected by the native
clergy, must the abuna go to Egypt, to be ordained by
the Coptic patriarch.* Neither in Ethiopia, nor else-
• John Mason Neale, a History of the Holy Eastern Church.
Vol. I, 1847, p. 156. V 2

308 THE ELDERS OF ALEXANDRIA.
where in the ancient Church, do we find anything like
the peculiar powers of the elders at Alexandria. Their
powers differed, not only from those of elders in other
lands, but from those of elders in the rest of Egypt.
In giving a bishop to the whole land, they exercised
a sort of spiritual authority over the whole, stood a
step higher than other elders, and possessed a quasi
episcopal character. . Yet the bishop alone seems to
have ordained ; for, while it is said that, in the absence
of the bishop, priests might confirm, it is nowhere said,
that they might ordain also.
When all this is carefully weighed, we see that the
appointment of the bishop by the elders at Alexandria,
did not so much tend to obliterate the distinction be
tween bishop and elder as the short statement by
Jerome would lead us to infer. It was rather a fruit of
that view, according to which the collective Church in
Egypt was to form, in its institutions, a symbol of the
universal Church. As the whole Church has Christ
for her Head, next to whom stand His Apostles, with
supervision over the whole ; so, there, a bishop having
twelve elders, with jurisdiction over all Churches in the
land. We find here realized in a national Church that
original type, which was elsewhere realized in each
particular Church. And the place which the bishop
of Alexandria thus received, puts us much in mind of
the honor and authority of James at Jerusalem. We
do not venture to assert that Mark had all this in his
eye from the outset. But both the arrangement and
the idea which runs through, seem to belong to the
time of S. John.
The Church founded in the city of the Ptolemies
was not exposed to the temptation of becoming Pha-

CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH. 309
risaic, like those in Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia, and
elsewhere. Probably few synagogues in Alexandria
belonged to the party of the Pharisees, But it was
exposed to a dangerous mixture of the truth with Egyp
tian and Greek elements of falsehood, in worship and
science. In the Museum endowed by Ptolemy Phila-
delphus, and in the similar institution by the emperor
Claudius, all the sects of Greek philosophy and all the
mystical tenets of the East were represented. The
Jews who had received Greek education had already
been seduced to regard the lofty ideas of Plato, Pytha
goras, and Zoroaster, as identical with revealed truth,
and to leaven the latter with them. And, without watch
ful care, the Christian doctrine might easily become a
mere eclectic philosophy, and the Christian Church a
theatre for philosophical and theosophical disputation.
This danger was increased by an event, of which,
although the books of the ancient fathers do not
mention it, we find traces in history. What became of
-the TherapeutEe at the lake Mceris, whom Philo
describes ? Why is his notice of them both the first and
the last ? Why was he the last writer of his school at
Alexandria ? Had the Therapeutae survived in a
separate form, Eusebius could never have confounded
them with the first Christians. Yet they certainly did
not die out. They appeared in a Christian garb. The
stream was not absorbed in the sand* It was rather
mixed up with the river of life. And this probably took
place at the end of the Apostolic age, i.e. at the time
when Christianity made the greatest strides, although
Christians had not yet begun to write historical works,
in which the event could be recorded. Judaism assumed,
•after the fall of Jerusalem, a yet more stereotyped

310 THE THERAPEUTiE.
character than before, one yet more distasteful to the
half hellenized Alexandrian Jews. The temple at Leon-
topolis was soon after pillaged and closed. (Joseph.
Bell. Jud. vii. 37 [30].) All these circumstances must
have shown to the Therapeutae that they should seek
their support, no longer in Judaism, but in the Church.
They took the same step, and probably at the same (if
not an earlier) time, as the Essenes in Judaea, who joined
the Church under Trajan. They brought both their
excellencies and their faults with them — on the one
hand, great earnestness and intelligence in the prophetic
mysteries— on the other, contempt for historical truth
and the letter of the law, as carnal things. We find
these very faults in Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
But we have proof of their existence in the Alexandrian
Church a century before. Clement held the Epistle of
Barnabas for genuine. It must therefore have been
highly thought of by his predecessors in Alexandria.
And it is a monument to the progess of Therapeutic
or Philonic ideas. It regards the relation of the Church
to obsolete Judaism, and warns the faithful against the
invitation of becoming proselytes of the latter, a warning
the date of which must be sought for before the rise of
the great Gnostic sects, and the second Jewish war
under Trajan and Hadrian. All the questions at issue
between the adherents of the Old and those of the New
Testament are treated of in this pretended Epistle of
Barnabas. It contains considerable light. Instance
the typical application of the law regarding clean and
unclean beasts to the relations of Christians to various
classes of character among men ; the typical exposition
of Esau and Jacob, Ephraim and Manasseh, in the
former of which it nearly agrees with the Epistle to the

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 3 II
Hebrews; and the arguments for the observance of
the Lord's day, as not the last day of a past week, but
the first of one to come, the entrance of a new order of
things through the resurrection of Christ. Yet, along
with this, it contains, not only historical errors, and
extravagant exegesis, but also the false doctrine, that
God never willed the sacrifices and fasts of the Jews,
the keeping of the Sabbath, or the erection of a visible
temple; that the covenant with Israel was abolished
when Moses brake the tables ; and that all earthly
things and the present dispensation are under the
government and at the disposal of Satan. These errors,
belonging to the false gnosis of the Jews, are thus, not
by a fraud in the writer, but by a self-deception on the
part of the Alexandrian readers of the Epistle, all
ascribed to the Apostle Barnabas, whom the Essene
Christian tradition also describes as having shared in
the planting of the Church at Alexandria.* The par
tiality of Clement for this Epistle makes nothing for
its genuineness. It is one of the many apocryphal
productions, with which the Jews, who followed the
ways of Greece, employed themselves, partly with in
nocent, partly wifh dishonest intentions, as they had
formerly done with the Sibylline oracles, and other
such fabrications.
There existed at one time another ancient monument
of the Gnostic tendencies in the Church of Alexandria,
viz., the so called Gospel of the Egyptians. Its few
surviving lines afford no data for determining whether
it really contained heresies, or was, as Clement of
Alexandria thinks, capable of orthodox explanation.
* For the probability of this, see before, p. 100, &c.

312 ORTHODOXY OF ALEXANDRIAN BISHOPS.
Much then contributed to prepare the soil in Egypt
for the Gnostics. Indeed Egypt and Syria were the
nurseries of those pestiferous mongrel religions which,
under the name of Gnostic systems, sought, in the
second century, to overthrow the Church, Hadrian, on
his travels, fouud in Alexandria a most extraordinary
approximation of the worshippers of Serapis, of the Jews,
and of the Christians, to each other. (Hadr. Ep. ad. Ser-
vianum. in Vopisc. vit. Saturnini, c. 2.) Whether his ob
servations were deep, or, as we think, superficial, there
can be no doubt that such mixture formed the most
deceiving snare of the Christians in Egypt. And their
steadfast and triumphant opposition to this assault of
the enemy, is a bright testimony to the firmness and
pureness of the foundation originally laid among them.
There can be little doubt that, long before Clement, the
Christian inquirers and teachers were occupied with
speculative delusions far more subtle than the coarse
colossal errors of Basilides and Valentinus. The spell
of Platonism tended to amalgamate truth with Greek
and Oriental mysticism. But it met with unshaken
resistance from the Alexandrian bishops, as keepers of
the true order and faith. The apostolic tradition and
the New Testament canon were preserved, as purely
as in any other place, at Alexandria. And this could
not have been, had not the same foundation been laid
here, at the first, as in the other Christian metropolitan
cities. The preachers of the Gospel who found their way
from Alexandria to the aborigines of Egypt, established
a national Church, as important and independent as
that of Syria. We know the gloomy severity of the
ancient inhabitants of Egypt, from their myths and

THE EGYPTIAN CHURCH. 3 1 3
their art, — the very opposites of the Greek type. This
character passed over into the Egyptian Church, and
after the lapse of two centuries, gave birth to the
mortifications of those hermits and inhabitants of the
deserts, who, as champions of imagined self-denial,
underwent exercises which nothing but a Titan power
could sustain. Their contempt of the world was not
new. But this was new, — that the efforts of these
mourning ascetae to find peace in the wilderness sprang
from their finding it no longer in the Church. From
the beginning, the same gloomy, but in some respects,
estimable tone of mind, although it did not lead at first
to such extremes of penance, had characterised the
whole Egyptian Church.

Finally, let us take a glance at the Church in Rome.
There were already indications of its destination to be
the centre of Christianity in the West. We have no
certain information as to the labours of any Apostle in
Gaul, Spain, or pro-consular Africa. Yet we cannot
-doubt, that the Apostolic age did not elapse, without
successful attempts to plant the Church there. It ap
pears that evangelists came from Asia to Southern Gaul,
as many Greek elements showed themselves there;
to judge from the rites whjch the Christians in Gaul,
and even in Britain, had in common with the Churches
of Asia. Yet, wherever the Latin language was pre
dominant, the bearers of the Gospel seem to have
come from Rome. So early as the second century,
Rome was regarded, in Africa, and even in Southern
-Gaul, as the sole apostolic seat {sedes aposiolica) for the

3 H CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.
West; and the Roman Church was recognised as that
on which others should lean.
The priesthood of the Latin Church was composed
of very different materials from those which formed the
Greek, Syrian, or Egyptian, clergy ; of men, neither
melancholy and meditative, like the Orientals, nor phi
losophically inquiring, like the Greeks ; but distinguished
by practical intelligence and energy, by a sense for
law and discipline, by capacity to set in order and to-
rule, — properties which greatly influenced their ministry.
While almost all the great teachers of the Greek
Church had been philosophers, almost all in Rome had
been jurists, some statesmen. In the one case philo
sophy was transferred into theological speculation, in
the other Roman law into ecclesiastical legislation. In
the one, was developed the prophetic discernment of
mysteries, in the other, the power of apostolic rule.
The pillar of the one was John, the receiver of visions,.
the teacher as to the Logos. That of the other was
Peter, the Rock, the Prince of the Apostles, invested
with the power of the keys. In the one case, the
nucleus of the congregation had been Greeks ; in the
other, Israelites, men of law, akin, in this, to the Romans.
All these differences were no late importation. They
were present from the first.
Linus, Anencletus, Clement, Euaristus, were, accord
ing to the series of Irenaeus, the first Roman bishops.
Eusebius adopts this series, and gives us also the years
of each, in his Church History, making Linus to have
been bishop from the martyrdom of Peter and Paul tilt
the year 80 ; Anencletus thence till 91 ; Clement thence
till 100 (Fuseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 2, 14, 15, 34). Ter-
tullian, and the Judaeo-Christian tradition, make Cle-

THE FIRST ROMAN BISHOPS. 3 I J-
ment to have been set by Peter, whence some have re
garded him as first in the series. According to the
Apostolical Constitutions, Paul consecrated Linus, and
Peter, Clement. AH this opens a wide field for con
jecture.* The population of Rome was then much greater than
the present population of Paris. Among such a mass
there must have been almost from the first more
than one congregation; and each with one or more
priests, deacons, and deaconesses. Such a condition
is traceable in the greetings at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans, which seem to be ad
dressed to persons in office. The women Prisca, .
Maria, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis, were evidently
deaconesses, who had much labored in the Lord.
There appear at least three distinct gatherings, one
under the known teacher Aquila, one under Asyncritus,
one under Philologus (Rom. xvi. 3, 14, 15, 22). But
Epsenetus (the first fruits of Achaia), Andronicus, Junias,
and Rufus (who were among the oldest members of
the Church), Urbanus (the fellow laborer of Paul), and
Apelles (the approved in Christ,) may justly be re
garded as elders in Rome. Over all these the Apostles
* The anachronism and other discrepancies here, may be recon
ciled by supposing, that Paul ordained Linus, and Peter, Clement,
to the priesthood : that Linus was elevated to the episcopate by one
or both, before their martyrdom ; and that the others received the
episcopate from other hands. Although the episcopate was the
higher rank, yet ordination by Peter or Paul to mere priesthood might
after their death have been regarded as the greater distinction, in
contrast with ordination by another Apostle. And, although
bishops should certainly not be ordained by delegates, but by.
Apostles themselves, yet it is possible that circumstances may have
rendered necessary an ordination by a delegate at Rome. — Tr.

3l6 THE FIRST ROMAN BISHOPS.
set one as chief shepherd. . A Church, so scattered and
so heterogeneous, could not have been kept together
without a bishop invested with large powers. It must
have split into several rival Churches. Linus was the
first who received this most weighty charge. Clement
seems to have laboured long with him, and under both
him and Anencletus, as pastor, ordained by Peter.
They who were committed to his care, and others, who
at a later period regarded him with peculiar honor,
appear to have looked rather to him as their guide,
than to Linus or Anencletus.
The theory, current among some, that, after the fall
of Jerusalem, the most influential Jewish Christians,
migrating to Rome, there introduced, for the first time,
the hierarchical principle and an Aaronic hierarchy,
rests, partly on historical, partly on doctrinal, errors.
Rome did not need to borrow an episcopate. Rome and
Jerusalem both stood originally under Peter. No one
but the Apostles could found a Roman episcopate. And
the Christian hierarchy, so far from being a mere
continuation or accommodation of the Mosaic, was that
abiding and glorious hierarchy of which the Mosaic was
only the type and precursor. The one episcopate was as
original as the other. And, if the Roman appeared
later, this was owing to the fact, that Rome enjoyed the
presence of the Apostles themselves longer than
Jerusalem did ; and did not so much feel the want of a
bishop.* * Although the proper place of a bishop is under, and not instead
of Apostles, the blessing of his office is most required, when Apostles,
although subsisting, are personally absent from his Church. As to
the delay in the appointment, we are apt to forget that there may
have been no one yet fit for the office. A bishop cannot be had at

CLEMENT OF ROME. 317-
Neither history or tradition lets us farther into ac
quaintance with Linus and Anencletus. Clement of
Rome, on the contrary, bears one of the most honoured
names in all antiquity. His biography became a favo
rite topic for fable and poetry, and is presented to us
like a romance. There were in the second century two
much read religious works, viz. the preaching of Peter
and the travels of Peter ; both originating among the
Jewish Christians, though we do not know where. The
former contained discourses of Peter to the Jews, the
latter his labors among the Gentiles. They no longer
subsist in their original form. They are combined
into one by a later hand, and adulterated with much
foreign matter, partly harmless, partly heretical. In the
Latin translation by Rufinus, under the title " Recogni-
tiones,' the whole is to be found more original and
less corrupted with heresy and other matter, than in the
Greek edition, which we have under the title of " Homi
lies of Clement," and which has been so deformed, by
the Essene Ebionites, as to be useless for historial
purposes. Long lectures, put into the Apostle's mouth,.
— in part of an admirable character, interlarded with
idyllic descriptions of circumstances, persons, and events,
and clothed in that attractive style which was formed
by the first Greek romances; a rare combination of
simplicity and elegance, — are what we find in the work.
In the writings of the heathen romance writers^
Chariton, Achilles Tatius, or Xenophon Ephesius, the
fair outside is desecrated by disgusting contents. Here,
in this first Christian romance, it is ennobled by moral
a moment's warning. All good Christians, nay, all good priests, are
not fit to be bishops. Of all local offices it is the weightiest, and
demands the most training.— Tr.

3l8 LEGENDARY LIFE OF CLEMENT.
dignity and tender sentiment. The whole hangs upon
-the biography of Clement himself. He professes to
have experienced the whole, as a disciple and companion
of Peter.
He was of a noble Roman family. His mother early
disappeared with her two youngest sons; his father
had gone to seek them, and had not returned. The
breast of the youth was now disquieted by uncertainty,
as to divine things, and a future life. In this con
dition he was much affected by the tidings, that, in
Judaea, a Son of the Highest had appeared, to bring
truth and salvation to mortals. He found Peter in
Judaea ; he found that which he sought. He accompa
nied the Apostle, witnessed his miracles, and heard his
preaching, by which the heathen were converted, and
-Churches planted, in the cities of Syria. There he found
his own mother, poor and sick. She had fled from Rome
with her children, to save her virtue; but had lost
children, and all else, in shipwreck. She was healed,
enlightened, and baptized by Peter. On the sea-side
Clement met an aged man, whom misfortune had made
a fatalist, and who now, in solitude, murmured against
God and man. In him Clement recognized his father.
The wonderful re-union with his kindred melted the old
man's heart. He also believed. The children, sup
posed to have perished in the ocean, were also restored
to their parents. They were found among the disciples
of Peter, who had rescued them from the dangerous
delusions of Simon the Samaritan sorcerer. The lead
ing ideas of this really interesting story are, the love
of God to man in His darkest providences, and that
peace of mind, that union of the divided, that consecra
tion and blessing of domestic relations, which are to

LEGENDARY LIFE OF CLEMENT. 319
be found in Christ. Much is psychologically true, and
throws light on the manners of antiquity. It is im
possible to discover whether the tale has a historical
reality for its basis. It would rather seem as if older
matter had been dressed up afresh by a Christian poet.
This only is certain : that Clement of Rome, whether
the same as he of whom Paul writes to the Philippians
or not (Phil. iv. 3), was a disciple of Peter, and in
intimate connection with him. Hence the Jewish
Christians, among whom these writings had their
origin, and who have attached several other works to
his name, regarded him as a principal witness for
tradition, and as a pillar of the Church, after the death
of the Prince of the Apostles. If he had not been a
disciple of Peter, he could not, after the death of James,
have been invested with a glory equal to that of the
latter. He is stated to have reduced to writing, and
published the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions.
These, undoubtedly apocryphal, works began to be
put together in the third century. And thus a set of
traditions acquired form and currency, not by any
official acts of office-bearers in the Church, not by
councils, nor, on the other hand, by heretics, but by
nameless members of the Churches who ventured on
this unauthorized collection. At the same time it is
to be observed, that the unknown authors, in order to
give authority to the work, made a most unwarrantable
use of Clement's name, so as to put him in the place
of first law-giver to the Church after the Apostles.
Nay, the Ebionite heretics have made yet more of him.
In working up, for their own ends, the Apocryphon
which contained his already mythic life, they repre
sented him, whose historical character they no longer

320 PERSECUTION BY DOMITIAN.
knew, as bishop of bishops, and as, in a certain sense,.
inheritor of James's authority. Thisjproves, that the
heretics at least, perhaps also the orthodox Jewish
Christians, already harboured the idea that a univer
sal bishop was to rule the Church after the Apostles.
But we must now turn to the true history of Clement.
Under him the Roman Church endured the per
secution by Domitian in 95. This tyrant, after having
put many nobles to death, in a manner as arbitrary
as that of Nero, turned his rage, towards the end of
his reign, against the Christians. He aimed at being
regarded as a vindicator of the national religion ; and
caused vestals, who were convicted of impurity, to be
walled up. He was jealous of philosophical sects, as
fostering political dissatisfaction. On similar grounds, he
suspected the Christians ; and seems, with the advice of
lawyers to have issued a regular edict against them.
" He put to death Flavius Clemens, the consul, although
he was both his cousin, and the husband of his relative
Flavia Domitilla, on the ground of an accusation of
atheism, brought against both. Many other Romans,
who had leaned to Judaism, were condemned upon
similar charges ; some to death, some to confiscation.
Domitilla was banished to the island Pandataria, in
the bay of Puteoli." Thus runs the report of the pagan
historian Dio Cassius. (Xiphilini epit. Dion. 67, 14.)
In the time of Jerome, one still saw, upon the island
Pontia, near Pandataria, the caves in which Domitilla
endured a tedious martyrdom. (Hieron. Ep. 86 [ah
27], ad Eustoch.) The names of the sufferers, if pre
served, would have yielded a rich martyrology. Chris
tian tradition assigns to this persecution the death of
many apostolic men, who had outlived that by Nero,

PERSECUTION BY DOMITIAN. 32 1
e.g. Mark, Andrew, Onesimus, Dionysius the Areopa-
gite. Be this as it may, this assault had a more dan
gerous character than that under Nero. Nero sacrificed
the Christians summarily in great [numbers, without
process of law, on the ground of supposed unnatural
crimes. Domitian conducted his persecution with
attention to all the forms of law. The shameful slan
ders were disproved. But the denial of the national
gods and the adoption of Jewish customs he punished
as capital crimes, after judicial trial. His imperial
edict, armed with the power of law, punished the
Christian faith as such, and that most severely in Roman
citizens. Christian writers tell us, that Domitian himself,
shortly before his assassination, had put ' a stop to the
persecution. Bnt according to Dio Cassius (Xiphi-
linus, 1. c. 68. i ), it did not cease, till Nerva, with whom
the series of the good emperors begins, set free those
accused of despising the gods, recalled the banished,
and forbade strictly all farther complaints against the
so called Atheism and Judaism. Tradition affirms, that
Sisinnius with his household, and many other persons
of distinction, friends of Nerva, were converted to the
faith. (Martyrium Clementis, §. 14.)
The designation of Christianity, at that time, in legal
phraseology, as Judaism, was no accident. It proved
that at Rome the Jewish element was yet predominant
in the Church, and the distinction between Mosaism
and Christianity not so marked as at Antioch. There
may have been yet thousands of Israelites in the Roman
Church. We know how Paul had to contend against
their prejudices, similar to those of the Church in Jeru
salem, under James. And it is a question, whether w

322 JEWISH ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
he had succeeded in overcoming these, in establishing
full harmony between the Jewish and the Gentile Chris
tians, and in obtaining as full recognition for himself as
for Peter. Here we must distinguish between the rulers
of the Church and the congregation. The former
agreed with Paul, if not from the first, at any rate
after the joint labor and death of the two Apostles at
Rome. The subordinates could hardly fail in following
the example of their principals. But we cannot so well
determine how far the Roman congregation had been
brought in the same respects. Many Jewish Christians
might, like the later Nazarenes in Syria, have recog
nized the Apostle to the heathen as such, without
acknowledging him as theirs also, or giving to his
writings equal authority with the works of the Old
Testament. Much contractedness may have remained.
Nay, while the Church, as a body, under its bishop,
might have been on an orthodox footing towards Paul,
there may have lurked in so large a city many erroneous
ideas. The rulers of the Church had no temporal
means of preventing heretical conventicles. The op
ponents of Paul may have continued or revived their
efforts after his death. And, when we see how early
heretical sects arose in Judaea, we can hardly suppose
that Rome, the receptacle of all spiritual good and evil
in the world, was free from them. So much however
is clear, that the Roman Church, in its recognized
organs, never rejected Paul, or forsook the right faith.
The testimony of antiquity, for the true and unin
terrupted maintenance of apostolic tradition by the
succession of Roman bishops, and against the pre
dominance of heresy, even the Ebionite, at any time,
is undeniable. We dare not listen to conjectures where

Clement's epistle to the Corinthians. 323
we have historical documents. In the front of these
stands, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the
genuineness of which is as undoubted as the original
predominance of Judaism at Rome. Although Clement
was a disciple of Peter, the Epistle proves that he taught
in harmony with Paul. He did not indeed yet exhibit
the doctrinal type of John, but as little any Judaizing
tendency. The incarnation of the Word was with
him not so prominent as justification by faith. The
Epistle, instead of exhibiting a stage of doctrine prior
to that of Paul, is, of all post-apostolic literature, the
only document which precisely expresses his faith. "All
they," says Clement, as to the Old Testament saints
{Clem. Rom. Ep. i. ad Cor. c. 32), "have not been
made glorious by themselves, or their works, or their
righteous life, but by God's will. So also are we, called
through His will in Christ Jesus, not righteous by
ourselves, our wisdom, insight, piety, and works wrought
out of a pure heart, but by faith, through which
Almighty God has justified all these from the be
ginning of the world." And the following passages,
are as if written by Paul ; " The Lord has received us
in love. Because of the love which He had to us, has
Christ our Lord, according to the will of God, given
His blood for us, His flesh for our flesh, His soul for our
soul." (c. 49.) " Let us look to Christ's blood, and
see how precious it is before God, because, being shed
for our salvation, it has purchased for the whole world
the grace of repentance." (c. 7.) So much akin are
his writings with those of Paul, and especially with the
Epistle to the Hebrews, that some of the learned in
Alexandria conjectured that Clement was the person
who assisted Paul in the composition of the latter. We
w 2

324 Clement's epistle to the corinthians.
do not think this idea well founded. But we do believe,.
that Clement, in addressing a Church founded by Paul,
studiously adopted Paul's manner of teaching, to render
his own Epistle more acceptable. We see that Peter
also did so, when writing to the Churches in Western
Asia. All this is a testimony, however, not for the
personal views of Clement alone, but also for those of
his Church. For, although the Epistle was composed
by him, it did not bear his name on its front; but was
sent as from the Roman to the Corinthian Church. As,.
in the Apocalypse, the Church is addressed in its angel,
so did the Roman Church write through its bishop.*
The writing expressed the unity of spirit subsisting,
both in bishop and people, and also in two separate
Churches. This fact is of itself enough to dissipate the wild
fancy of certain opponents of the New Testament, that
the Ebionite heresy prevailed in the Roman Church
for one hundred years after Paul. Such persons cannot
maintain this hypothesis without questioning the genuine
ness of Clement's Epistle. But to question this is a
desperate attempt. At Corinth, to which it was ad
dressed, it was publicly read in the Church some eighty
years after the decease of its author under the episco-
* It is a prime canon of sound interpretation always to assume
that directions given to, or acts done by, a body, recognize and do
not ignore the existence and use of its proper organism. Other
wise the divine commands to the Church, if appropriated and
carried out by the first zealous individual, can work nothing but
confusion, e. g. the command in I John iv. to try the spirits, which
none but the bishop can fulfil. It is not enough to take hastily up
the letter of any scriptural text, or living injunction. We must
also be sure that we are those members of the body who are called
to fulfil it.— TR.

Clement's epistle to the Corinthians. 325
pate of Dionysius. This we learn from a fragment of
Dionysius himself. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 23.) The
'letter was therefore preserved there in the archives of
the Church, with other manuscripts used in worship.
•It was known to the flock through constant use. It
thus had fides pullica, and was completely protected
from mistake and adulteration. Save the books of the
primitive canon, no work of the time is so accredited.
Eusebius assures us that it was similarly used in many
other Churches, (Hist. Eccl. iii. 16.) His statement is
-confirmed by the so called Apostolical Canons and
Constitutions. The manuscript copy preserved to us
forms part of a splendid manuscript of the Bible, pre
pared for use in the cathedral Churches, the Codex
Alexandrinus of the British Museum.* Irenaeus avails
himself of this Epistle, to prove, against the Gnostics,
that the Romish Church, which he regarded as the
preserver of uncorrupt tradition and faith, was ortho
dox from the first. (Adv. Haer. iii. 3, 3.) And from
-this, as well as from the letter of Dionysius to the
Romans, we conclude, that the Epistle of Clement was
¦ as well known and as thoroughly recognized in Rome
as in Corinth, although not adopted into the Roman
Canon. But this writing of Clement is not the only work
which we have from the Roman Church. Next to it
stands the book of Hermas.t And in it we find, not
* A complete edition of Clement's epistle appeared for the
first time in 1875 (Constantinople) by Philotheos Bryennios.
t Hermse Pastor. The Latin translation was known long ago.
The Greek original was lately published by Tischendorf from the
famous Codex Sinaiticus.

326 THE VISIONS OF HERMAS.
only no reference to Paul, but, strange enough, matter
drawn from Jewish theology. The same absence of
all allusion to Paul and his writings meets us in the
writings of Justin Martyr, who, although he did not
proceed from the Roman Church, stood in connection
with it. And, lastly, the same is the case in the Recog
nitions, which, although we cannot say whether they
were composed in Rome or in Greece, and although
they were regarded as apocryphal, were certainly not
looked on as heretical or schismatic productions. This
seems to show, that down to late in the second century,
a theology maintained itself in the Church, which met
with approval, although it made no use of Paul's
writings, and did not yet rank him with Peter and John.
And the book of Hermas establishes this fact, as to
Rome, by having itself obtained almost canonical
authority. As to its genuineness, we cannot contradict
that tradition by an author unnamed, be he Caius of
Rome, Hegesippus, or another, who says (Fragmentum
de Canone Muratorianum), " Hermas has recently in
our times written (or put together), at Rome, the
Pastor {i.e. the collections of visions), while his brother,
the bishop Pius, occupied the chair at Rome. There
fore 'one may indeed read the book, but not make it
public in the Church, or reckon it either among the
Prophets or among the writings of the Apostles."
In the book itself, Hermas receives a command, in
the second vision, to send it to Grapte (apparently the
oldest deaconness), that it might be read to the widows
and orphans, and to Clement (during whose episcopate
all the visions date), for circulation among the bishops.
The work contains no trace of that contest with the
great Gnostic sects, which had already begun under-

THE VISIONS OF HERMAS. 327
Pius I., a.d. 142 — 157. The chief ecclesiastical ques
tion which it treats is, whether repentance is open to
those who had fallen from baptismal grace — a question
which could not have been for the first time mooted by
Montanus, but must have arisen as soon as men fell
from grace, and may well have already received con
tradictory answers as early as the end of the first
century. The whole style of the book speaks for its
composition before the commencement of Christian
literature. Its simplicity, and doctrinal unguardedness,
its visions and inspirations, in their form and sub
stance, and its Jewish ideas, all bespeak for it high anti
quity. Had the whole been fabricated out of nothing
in the middle of the second century, its high estima
tion with many would be inexplicable. Irenaeus quotes
from it as from the Scriptures. In the days of Ter-
tullian, the African Christians adopted from it the
custom (observed also by some heathens), of sitting
down after finishing prayer. It became forgotten in
the Latin Church. But, in the Greek, it was highly
prized by Origen, and was, as late as the fourth or
fifth century, recommended for the instruction of cate
chumens. It stood, not among the canonical, but
among the " ecclesiastical " books, which, after the last
adjustment of the canon, composed a large secondary
series of proved and orthodox writings. Our idea is
this — that individual visions were really seen and re
corded in the Church at Rome, about the end of the
Apostolic age — then, for a time, little regarded — and
afterwards, under Pius the first, brought again into
notice, put together, and perhaps modified. This, while
it does not contradict the above authority, gives full

328 THE VISIONS OF HERMAS.
weight to the other indications as to the contents of
the book.*
It were a great mistake to think, that all that is
inspired is therefore canonical, i.e. suited and intended
to be an abiding and universal rule, by which every
thing is to be tried. Nor have we a right to exclude
occasional supernatural openings of, and illuminations
in connexion with, the canonical Scriptures, else the
Scriptures would be in a great measure a sealed book,
for want of the light which God is pleased to cast
upon them, according to the requirements of the time.
We know incontrovertibly from Paul's Epistles that
prophetic utterance was of constant occurrence in the
Church, and that, although a gift of the Holy Ghost, it
did not lay claim at once to implicit obedience. Its
fruits were to be judged of and examined, (i Cor. xiv. ;
Rom. xii. 7 ; 1 Thess. v. 19 — 22.) Fragments of such
prophecy, perhaps the most important fragments which
survive, are to be found in the work of Hermas. Some
at least of the visions we cannot regard as mere poetic
* Although this may be the genuine work of Hermas, and the
Epistle of Barnabas spurious, yet they seem to be both compila
tions, in which words of prophecy and other spiritual light thrown
upon the mysteries of Scripture or the purpose of God, have been
in substance collected and put in writing for preservation, after
having been corrupted in their terms, distorted in their formi
and perverted in their application, by oral transmission and hasty
interpretation. All primitive traces of true typical and symbolic
instruction are so mis-assorted and defaced, as only to confuse and
mislead, until the Church shall recover the true light which she has
lost, and is enabled to recognize it as having been given of old.
Prophecy in the Church is given for present discernment and use.
When it is the mere object of memory, it cannot be kept in the
right analogy of faith. See even Irenaeus, ad fin, — Tr.

THE VISIONS OF HERMAS. 329
-fictions and allegories, for the adornment or enforce
ment of the truth. They must have appeared as de
scribed ; and that not without supernatural influence and
a depth surpassing the thoughts of man. And yet they
appear in a disorderly form — originally mingled with
the human ideas and errors of the first author — after
wards added to and adorned by the later revisor, and
therefore, on many combined grounds, without cano
nical authority/"
These representations by Hermas, which have no
basis in Scripture, are to be derived from the Jewish
theology. So especially his doctrine as to angels. Ac
cording to him, six angels were first created, to whom
God subjected all creation. Philo assumes a co-ope
ration of the angels in creation ; and both Justin and
Athenagoras hold that a special oversight and care over
men and all things under heaven have been committed
by God to the angels. These teachers drew their
doctrine from the Jewish book of Enoch. Hermas ex
pressly quotes a similar lost apocryphon — the book of
Eldad and Medad. Still more remarkable is the spi
ritual agency ascribed by Hermas to angels. Those six
direct the building of the Church. Michael, the prince
of angels, writes the law in the hearts of the faithful.
* The idea that no supernatural phenomenon can be divine if it
have any defect, tamish, or mixture, is not only contrary to 1 Cor.
xiv. and other Scriptures, which warn against the ¦wrong exercise of
spiritual gifts, without impugning their reality, but argues great
ignorance, as to the place and constitution of man, as the instrument
of God. God does not abolish man's nature, dignity, and responsi
bility, by any gift. The gifted are not mere machines— but respon
sible for the use of the gifts entrusted to them. And the gift grows
er decays, is improved or perverted, through the faithfulness or un
faithfulness of the man. — Tr.

J30 THE VISIONS OF HERMAS.
The angel of repentance, the shepherd of men (from-
whom the book is named), cares for those who fall
away, seeks to bring to repentance, and guards the
penitent against relapse — having a great responsibility.
Twelve good spirits, which bear the names of Christian
virtues, and are seen by Hermas in the form of virgins,.
conduct man into the kingdom of heaven. Twelve
unclean spirits, named from the like number of sins,
impede him. To every man are given two genii, of
whom one suggests good thoughts, the other evil.*
These apocryphal angel theories contain no contra
diction of Paul. But Hermas does contradict him in
assuming the merit of works — nay, supererogation.
And in this he makes frequent allusion to the Epistle-
of James. Yet, after all, the doctrines of Hermas,
foreign as they are to the type of Paul, are very far
removed from the errors of the Ebionites and from that
hostility to him which these errors occasioned. There
is no trace here of the threefold Shibboleth of heretical
Judaism, which we read of in Ignatius and elsewhere
— circumcision — Sabbatism — and distinction of meats.
* Here are probably confounded two ministries, that of heavenly
angels and that of angels of Churches. As to the former, it is
alike erroneous, to suppose these inferior to man at the first, or
superior to him now. Christ Himself was at His incarnation made
lower than angels, because He took our condition. He is now
exalted over them all. And we are so in Him. Yet, although
our place towards angels is altered by our advancement in Christ, .
the place of angels and their ministry have not been altered. They
are set over the visible creation, and have still a care over us in so
far as we belong to it. But, though they were used in the giving of
the law, being then higher than man, they are not so in the Gospel-
Ceding to man his exaltation in Christ, they learn God's wisdom.
from the Church, and help us, as our inferiors. — Tr.

THE VISIONS OF HERMAS. 33 I
Hermas bears a noble testimony to the purifying and'
saving power of baptism. He says nothing of circum
cision, or of the Ebionite doctrine as to Christ.
Hermas saw the Church, in the form of an edifice,.
like a tower founded upon a rock. (Similit. ix. 12.)
The rock, so large as to bear the whole earth, was very
ancient. In it he saw a gate newly cut out, whence pro
ceeded a brightness greater than that of the sun. He
received the intepretation, that the rock and the gate
were the Son of God — that the Son was anterior to all
creatures, His Father's counsellor at the creation of the
world — but that the gate was new, because He had ap
peared in the end of the world, to bring into God's king
dom those who shall attain salvation, and because He
was the only way to God. We find here evident al
lusion to the doctrine of Solomon as to Wisdom, and to
John's doctrine as to the Logos. In the fifth similitude, the
three persons of the Godhead are clearly distinguished
(Simil. v. 5.) ; only the Holy Ghost is there spoken of as
Son, and the Son as servant — the former in accordance
with the Jewish theology, but in a way capable of
orthodox interpretation — the latter, in order, not to
infringe on the divine dignity, but to express the great
humiliation, of the Son.
This work affords a new proof that Jewish traditions
could keep their place within a Christian system without
infringing the rule of faith or the bond of unity. We
may not infer from this unguardedness and want of
precision in expression, that the doctrine of the Church
also was uncertain and variable. And we must not
forget, that Hermas, as he appears in the book, was
not a presbyter, but a layman, and therefore not
versant in theological technicalities.

332 THE VISIONS OF HERMAS.
The condition of the Church, as described by him,
was sinking and endangered. Rich men, who forgot
beneficence ; priests, who turned to their own use the
offerings of the faithful ; Christians who returned to
the pleasures of the world ; and those who in persecu
tion had denied the name of Christ, and forfeited (as
was thought) their return to God. Hermas saw the
need for a thorough repentance and cleansing, and he
felt the adaptation of the revelations and exhortations
received by him, to purify and prepare the Church for
a new persecution (probably that under Trajan, for
Domitian's must have been passed). He reckons the
Apostles, without exception, among the departed.
The vision of the building of the Church (the third)
which re-appears in a fuller form at the end of the
book (in the ninth similitude), has a deep meaning.
He sees the Church as built upon Christ the rock.
Those splendid stones, put together as in one piece,
which lie next to the rock, are the Apostles, the bishops,
the teachers (presbyters), and the deacons ; who have
walked in divine meekness, exercised the episcopate,
taught, and holily and humbly served the elect of God,
already asleep or yet alive. He sees the various sorts
of stones, fit or unfit to be built in. The building of the
tower is near its completion. Then the end shall come,
and the feast of joy in the kingdom be held. Those
Christians who are now rejected as unfit stones, shall
not, indeed, be with the saints in the divine edifice ; yet
they after great suffering, still may attain to repentance.
He sees that a cessation has taken place in the
progress of the building. This has occurred for the
sake of the Christians who are impure, that they may
yet repent and be builded in. But if they will not,

THE VISIONS OF HERMAS. 333.
others shall be put in their place, and they shall be
entirely rejected (Similit. ix. 14). " Do good works, ye
who have received earthly goods from the Lord, lest,
while ye delay, the building be completed; because
for your sakes has the work of building been inter
rupted. If ye haste not to do that which is right, the
tower shall be completed and ye shut out." So runs
the concluding exhortation. (Similit. x. 4.)
He also receives a promise of the renovation of the
Church. In the first vision she appears to him in an
aged form, worn out and decayed, so that he thinks he
sees "the sibyl." The interpretation is, "Your spirit
has become old and slothful. Weakened by worldly
affairs ye have yielded to indifference. Your minds
are confused, and ye are grown old in your sorrow.""
But while the enfeebled receive the revelation made to
them in the compassion of God, their spirit is renewed,
their weakness cast off, and their faith strengthened.
Hence Hermas sees, in his second vision, the Church
again erect, with youthful looks, more joyful than at
the first, yet still with white hair. In the third vision
he sees her still more youthful, adorned, and glorious-
in her countenance (Vis. iii. 11, 12, 13). These traits
correspond exactly with the condition of the Church at
the end of the Apostolic age. They contain warning
and comfort, such as Christendom needed at that great
turning point of her internal history. And it can hardly
be doubted, that at least these visions, the most precious
part of the book, really date at that time, and not
later.*

* Three things are most striking in the visions of Hennas^
ist. The clear distinction between the general salvation of all who-

344 CESSATION OF THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE.
We must now, in conclusion, once more survey the
condition of the Church as a whole. No period of
ecclesiastical history has so little light thrown upon
it by direct testimony, as this period of transition from
the Apostolic to the post-Apostolic age. Yet it is pos
sible to ascertain somewhat, both as to the external
¦change which then passed upon Christendom, and as
to the internal change of feeling which accompanied
it. The time came when the rule of the Apostles was
either to cease or to pass into other hands. Each in
dividual Church, which had received a bishop from the
Apostles, was protected and provided for, as long as he
lived. But who was to undertake the oversight of all
Churches, and of those set over] them ? From whom,
in the event of uncertainty or discord among bishops,
could instruction in the truth, and decision as to right
and wrong, go forth, in a way which should both bind
and satisfy all ? Who had authority to ordain elders
and bishops, as the Apostles had hitherto done, and to
found new bishoprics 1 Who had confidence to im
part, with the same power and efficacy, that establishing
believe in Christ, and the peculiar place, dignity, office, and destiny
¦of the baptized as members of His body, partakers of the divine
nature, stones in God's temple, joint heirs with Christ. 2nd. The
distinction between those who finally apostatize and forfeit their
part in Chiist, and those who, although they do not apostatize, yet
forfeit, by sloth and unbelief, the highest honor of the elect, to be
the sealed first fruits, gathered unto God before the harvest at the
end of the world, and, who, instead of being taken away, so as to
escape the last great tribulation, have to pass through it, as unsealed^
3rd. The prophetic indication of the interruption of the building
from the disappearance of the master builders, till they shall re
appear, and the Church shall appear as a bride. — Tr.

CESSATION OF THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. 335
grace and seal of confirmation, which the first believers
had received from the Apostles themselves 1
The primitive Church knew nothing of the confused
and confounding modern doctrine, that all ecclesias
tical power rests in the multitude, and that a majority
can elect, commission, and empower to all spiritual
functions. There is, in all antiquity, no trace of the
idea, that, when the Apostles died out, their authority
devolved upon the whole body of the faithful, to be by
them committed afresh to individuals. And men were
then too cautious and scrupulous in holy things, to
interpret any inward impulse to labor for the good of
the Church however powerful and genuine, into a
divine commission, legitimate call, and adequate en
dowment, for such momentous functions.
The majority of apostolic functions had been per
formed by apostolic delegates, as well as by Apostles.
Else the Church could not have been planted in so
short a time throughout the whole Roman empire.*
The commission of these delegates, however, was not
only personal to them, but not even for life, being
limited to certain occasions and services. Hence we
nowhere find that, on the death of John, any survivors,
who had been used as delegates, undertook the care of
the Church universal. Some of them, as Mark, Luke,
* It is remarkable that, of twelve men called to the same apos
tolic office, we have no documentary evidence as to more than two,
and no explicit tradition as to more than two or three of the rest, to
prove any definite work which they did. Yet we have no reason to
suppose the rest to have been less faithful, though their parts were
less prominent. The works of each Apostle were, in fact, those of
the whole college. And the work of faith is not to be measured by
mere activity. Some may have sustained at home and in secret,
those who labored abroad and openly.— Tr.

33^ EPISCOPACY DISTINCT FROM APOSTLESHIP.
and Timothy, were indeed, by later writers, called
Apostles. But this was evidently in that vague use of
the name which is common to this day. It is indeed
not impossible that one or other of these men may,
like Paul or Barnabas, have been actually called to
and qualified for apostolic labours.* Yet there is no
proof whatever of this. Tradition informs us, on the
contrary, that the most of these delegates afterwards
labored as bishops. Their calling, to serve the Church
as a whole, fell into abeyance ; and they became
exclusively chief shepherds of particular Churches.
For this is the difference between a bishop and a dele
gate, that the former is permanently set over and
wedded to a particular Church, as Christ to the whole.
That ancient canon which provides, that no bishop
shall be taken from one Church to be set over another,
save on the most special and urgent grounds, was,
doubtless, founded on Apostolic recollections. (Can.
apost. n, Lat 14.)
Thus we see also the difference between apostles
and bishops. The former are bound to no one diocese ;
the latter are. Each bishop has authority in Christ's
stead over his own Church, to teach, exhort, bless*
* As the truth of God, when forgotten, may be revived, or, when
not yet developed, may be pre-indicated in a partial or distorted
form, so may His ordinances be continued, revived, or anticipated,
although in a feeble and limited form, and illegitimate manner.
The whole intermediate history of Christendom teems with the
efforts of the Spirit of Christ to preserve or restore all those divine
institutions which alone can perfect the Church. And we should
neither deny the reality of these efforts, on account of their imper
fect form, nor yet be prevented by recognizing them from knowing,
seeking, and expecting God's perfect ordinances and manner of
working.— Tr.

EPISCOPACY DISTINCT FROM APOSTLESHIP. 337
exercise discipline, and send out the Gospel ; but not to
judge other bishops, or labor in a foreign diocese. It
is well known how clearly the principle, that no bishop
was responsible to another, was expressed by Cyprian,
as late as 256, in the council of Carthage. And that
certainly implied that none could be regarded as set
over the whole Church.
If it were true, that the apostles had appointed-
bishops, in consequence of feeling that they were about
to depart, or in other words, had made the institution
of the episcopate part of their testament to the Church,
so that, by their dying directions, their power should be
inherited by bishops, the usual episcopal theory would
be well founded. But the fact is not so. This episco
pal office was, in its essence and origin, no continuance
of, or substitute for, the apostolic. The absence of
Apostles was not the condition of its origin or agency.
It did not come into life as apostleship died. On the
contrary, it existed simultaneously with apostleship.
It was instituted to co-exist with apostleship. And
the condition of its right operation and development
was that it should be upheld by apostleship. While
John was yet in the plenituae of his authority and
labours, he had seven bishops, at least, under him in
Asia. Episcopacy therefore is not only quite a different
thing from what mere episcopalians would make it,
but is in this respect a much higher thing, that it is
properly no accidental substitute or surrogate for any
higher office, but an essential and distinct member in
the original organization of the Church according to the
will of God, with functions as definite as, yet wholly
different from, those of Apostles. Apostles, bishops are

338 EPISCOPACY DISTINCT FROM APOSTLESHIP.
not. Although they have been in fact successors of
Apostles, they were not appointed to be so.*
Equally erroneous is the opinion that episcopal
government was introduced by the surviving Apostles,
after the fall of Jerusalem, to provide a basis of unity
for the Church, and bind the many congregations into
one corporation. The very Apostles who are supposed
to have done so, were the basis of unity themselves.
The Church, as an organic whole, is as old as the apo
stleship itself. Bishops of equal rank, whose number
under Trajan probably amounted to one hundred, were
by no means the fit instrument for making or maintain
ing the unity of the Catholic Church ; partly because
at that time an episcopal council was all but impossible ;
yet chiefly because, after it became possible, the bishops
themselves were, each of them, one with his own flock ;
and the question how the flocks were to be kept in unity
really resolved itself into the question, how the bishops
were to be kept in the same. The Apostles could main
tain unity, because they formed a central power, and
each belonged to the whole Church, and none were
identified with any one flock. When they disappeared,
the Church demanded some higher substitute for their
universal central authority, than an aggregate of those
very local elements which needed to be kept together.
But there was no such substitute to be had at the
time. Therefore, by necessary consequence, these apo
stolic functions which were necessary for the existence
of every flock, such as confirmation of the baptized and
ordination of elders, devolved on the bishop of each
* If each bishop has no universal jurisdiction, no aggregate of
bishops has. — Tr.

BISHOPS EXERCISING APOSTOLIC FUNCTIONS. 339
Church. They could not be given up, and they could
not proceed from any but the highest existing ordi
nance, i.e. the episcopal. Now this took place univer
sally, save in the single case of Egypt, and without
-contradiction. To explain so remarkable a fact, we
must have recourse to the supposition, that, already
during the life of the Apostles, and not without their
approbation, the chief shepherds had been accustomed
in many churches to confirm and ordain, under reserva
tion of the subsequent apostolic sanction. We cannot
imagine, that John, in those years in which he alone
represented the apostleship, was personally at work in
all provinces of Christendom. The bishops could not
suddenly have undertaken, say in the year ioo, that
which had been invariably done by Apostles before.
An enlargement of the episcopal functions must have
accompanied the gradually increasing rarity of the
the apostolic.0
But the existence of a blank not filled up in the
edifice of the Church, must have been especially felt at
the appointment of bishops themselves. It might in
deed be clear in the light of the Holy Spirit who were
fit for the sacred office. But who was to bless and
supply with their spiritual armour the men thus singled
out ? Scripture says, that without all contradiction the
less is blessed of the greater. (Heb. vii. 7.) But here
* Although the offices of bishops and apostolic delegates were
distinct, there was no absolute bar to the occasional employment
-of a local bishop as delegate for some special work, either in his
own diocese or elsewhere. And we need not assume that bishops
usurped, personally, or as bishops, the functions of confirmation and
¦ordination. The authority given by the Apostle constituted each
bishop, to that effect, a delegate of his own Church. — TR.
X 2

340 BISHOPS EXERCISING APOSTOLIC FUNCTIONS.
were mere bishops — equals — who had to ordain an
equal. The ancient canonical rule, that a bishop must
be consecrated by two or three, meant, that the act was
performed in the name of the whole episcopal college.
The idea that the supreme authority essentially belonged'
to the totality of bishops, was only a theory created by
the difficulty, not a true one, nor one adequate to
solve it.
The remnants of antiquity have very little to say as
to what provision the Apostles made for future genera
tions in this matter. Paul indeed commanded Timothy
(2 Tim. ii. 2) : " What thou hast heard of me, before
many witnesses, commit thou to faithful men, who shall
be able to teach others also." These words no doubt
establish a succession ; and a portion of apostolic autho
rity must have passed from Paul through Timothy to
these faithful men, and to their successors, throughout.
He must be destitute of all esteem for history and
authority, who is not impressed by the proof of an unin
terrupted apostolic succession. But all this says nothing"
as to the extent of the power which so descended
through Timothy. And it is impossible, from this text
alone, to justify, as normal and right, all the ecclesiasti
cal order which the second century presents to us.
Remarkable as the words of Clement are, they con
tain little more than those of Paul just quoted. After
stating that Moses, when a contest for the priesthood
arose among the tribes, took measures by which to
prevent anarchy for the future, Clement adds (Ep. i.
ad Cor. c. 43, 44), "So our Apostles, also, knew
through the Lord Jesus Christ, that a contest for the
episcopacy should arise. For this cause, in perfect
foreknowledge, they appointed those above mentioned

THE ELDERS IN ASIA. 34 1
¦{the bishops. and deacons for future believers); and
thereafter gave directions, that, when those first ap
pointed should fall asleep, other tried men should, as
successors, receive their offices. Those therefore who
had been appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by
men of note, with the joyful assent of the whole con
gregation ; who had ministered to the flock of Christ
blamelessly, humbly, quietly, and without worldliness ;
and who had for a length of time had the testimony of
all for them, we regard it as unjust to put from their
office " (as had been done at Corinth). The men of
note, here spoken of, are far too indefinitely described,
to allow of drawing any inference from the passage, as
to the great question, whether the Apostles saw, in the
episcopate, the legitimate and adequate continuation of
the apostolate.
There are rather indications of a desire excited in
the Church, by the experience of her loss, for a higher
authority than episcopal. Asia Minor possessed for the
longest period bishops (or elders) who had seen and
learned from John himself. Irenaeus evidently regards
these " Elders in Asia," of whom he had known one in
Polycarp, as invested with such a halo of dignity, that
it would seem as if he and many with him had seen in
these elders a surviving shadow of the apostolic college.
It was still more natural to regard the bishops of the
great metropolitan cities as pillars of the Church, even
though looked upon as no more than the first in honor
among equals. And this is well known to be the present
view of the Greek Church ; viz. that the highest autho
rity in Christendom has devolved on five patriarchs.
But it need not astonish us, to find, in addition to all
this, an inclination, even at that early period, to concede

342 BUDDINGS OF ROMAN PRIMACY.
to one bishop the first place among the bishops of the
metropolitan cities, and therefore the first place in
Christendom. This is the assertion of the Roman
Catholic theologians. And it becomes us to deal with
a position attended with such momentous consequences,
not in the spirit of prejudice but in that of sober exami
nation. The grounds which seem to carry up to a high
antiquity the acknowledgment of the apostolic authority
in the Roman See, connect themselves with Clement of
Rome. The advocates of Rome of course lay very
little stress on the apocryphal and mythical descriptions
of Clement, as already a universal bishop. The real
question is, whether the same idea is to be found in the
genuine documents of the orthodox Church, at a period
so early as to afford adequate evidence drawn from the
end of the Apostolic age. The Romanists cite the
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In Corinth one
or two ambitious persons had caused a schism more
dangerous than that in the time of Paul. The Church
had been seduced by them to rise against their elders ;
and righteous men were deposed from their office by
the unrighteous. Thereupon the Roman Church sent a.
letter to Corinth by the hands of Claudius, Ephebus,
Valerius Bito, and Fortunatus. The letter though
composed by Clement bears the name of the Roman
Church. It abounds in exhortations to love, humility,
and subordination.
The disturbers are called upon to repentance, to vol
untary removal, and to the sacrifice of themselves for the
good of the flock. The Church is reminded to pray for
them, that they may accept the wholesome discipline of
the Lord, and submit to the divine ordinances. Here, it is

BUDDINGS OF ROMAN PRIMACY. 343
said, the Roman bishop exercised authority over the
Corinthian Church, and interfered in its affairs as an
apostle alone would have done. But all this by no
means follows from a just estimate of the facts. The
Corinthian Church, when it received this writing from
the Roman, had apparently no bishop — not as never
having had one, but from the see being vacant. In
this widowed and orphan condition, she was helped, in
quenching the rebellion, by her Roman sister, who had
one. It was a service of love in a time of need. If it
proved any external authority, it proved that of the
Roman Church as a body, not that of its bishop only.
And it in no way fortifies that position, against which so
many later facts militate, that the bishop of Rome
then stood as judge over others, or as vicar of Christ
over the Church catholic*
* It is likely that the Corinthian was the first important Gentile
Church whose bishop had died since the departure of all the
Apostles, or all but John. As, under the law, the place of Aaron
was to be filled by one of his sons, so one of the elders should have
filled the vacant episcopate. Perhaps none was ripe for it. The
evil and the course pursued to cure it afforded a striking proof of
the importance attached to the episcopal office. The absence of a
bishop as the shield of the flock was the occasion for Satan's
assault.-* And the Church, feeling that it could not prosper without
episcopal rule, rather put itself for the time under a foreign bishop,
and took a place like that of the many congregations under his care
at Rome, than remain unprotected. But the Romish interpretation
of the event, in exalting the apostolic authority of the bishop of
Rome, degrades his episcopal, by assuming that he as mere bishop,
could not adopt for a time a widowed Church. And it degrades the
Corinthian episcopacy, if existing, by putting it under another. The
"potior principalitas " ascribed by Irenseus to the church at Rome,
points rather to its founders as the two first of the Apostles, than to
itself. Compare Iren. iii. I, with iv. 23. — Tr.

344 BUDDINGS OF ROMAN PRIMACY.
At the same period another Church, enjoyed a
temporary pre-eminence, viz. that of Ephesus, which
Christ himself in the Apocalypse recognized as an
ecclesiastical centre. Yet it is not to be denied that»
soon afterwards, the scale turned in favor of the
Roman Church, which Ignatius, if his words are rightly
rendered by the Romanists, addressed as the president
of the confederation of love. Taking all into consi
deration which contributed to convert the capital of the
world into the capital of Christendom, it must be
admitted, that, at the time when the apostolic power
disappeared, the seed of that new papal growth was
sown, in which the major part of the Church, for a
thousand years, believed that it had got an adequate
substitute for proper apostolic guidance.
Yet it was only the seed. The advocates of the
Romish primacy themselves allow that it was gradually
developed — that the primacy gradually assumed the
place of supreme ecclesiastical power, and was gra
dually recognized by the Church. But this develop
ment, even when regarded in its most ideal form,
contains a contradiction of primitive Church history,
and of Scripture. It is, and ever will be, a historical
mistake to hold apostolate and episcopate identical. It
is easy to prove that Peter planted the Church at
Rome. It is also possible that he exercised episcopal
authority there — for the episcopal is embraced in the
apostolic. But all this does not prove, and it cannot
be shown, that the Roman bishop either was consti
tuted at the first, or even legitimately became, heir of
the collective apostolic authority. In the original di
vine plan and structure of the Church, there is no
universal bishop, but Christ himself. He is the sole

THE DECEASE OF S. JOHN. 345
Head of the Church. He rules the whole, not by an
individual vicar, who converts the altar into a throne,
but by instruments of no estimation among men, by
His Apostles as elders, through whom He does all, by
whom He draws nigh to the faithful, and His power
is made glorious, and by whom His place is not filled,
but kept and declared vacant, till He shall return*
On the extinction of the apostolic office without an
adequate surrogate, Christendom was certainly neither
so blind nor so indifferent, as not to feel its loss. And
the New Testament itself affords to us the most accre
dited testimony as to the feelings of the faithful at that
time. This is the addition made to the Gospel of John
by his disciples after his death. (John xxi.)
Christ had already said, before His transfiguration
on the Mount, " There be some of them which stand
here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. xvi. 28.)
After His resurrection, when He appeared to the seven
disciples on the Sea of Tiberias, He spoke a word full
of mystery to John, which came to the ears of the faith
ful, and especially occupied those among whom John
* The question whether Peter was at Rome, laboured there,
planted the Church there, presided there, and died there, are all
away from the true question between Romanists and other Chris
tians ; and might all, did history permit, be answered in the
affirmative, without Rome gaining anything thereby. Rome claims
supremacy for -its bishop, either as bishop, or as Apostle. If the
former, the answer is, that a bishop is not an Apostle, even though
he may have succeeded the first Apostle in his episcopate ; and
that none but an Apostle can have supremacy. If the latter, the
answer is, that no pope has been called to apostleship by God, or
recognized as Apostle by all Christendom. But his claims prove
ithis— that the Church still needs apostleship.— Tr.

346 THE DECEASE OF S. JOHN.
spent his last days. " The saying went abroad among
the disciples, that this disciple should not die." (John-
xxi. 23.) Many expected therefore to see fulfilled in
him the above prophecy given by our Lord. And, on
the decease of all the other Apostles, the expectation
became more lively, that John, who had been so won
derfully preserved, should witness the return of the
Lord. But it happened otherwise. He also went to his
rest after attaining the utmost limit of man's age. He
did not die as a martyr — for, as the saying went, he did
not need that purgation. He died in Ephesus. His
tomb stood outside the city. We may imagine the
deep impression made by his death upon the faithful.
The fact was then unquestionable. Was then the word
of Christ to go unfulfilled ? The last chapter of John's
Gospel meets this question. It is, in our opinion,
chiefly written by John himself. The last verses only
are added by the elders of Ephesus, who had the keep
ing of the sacred book. Christ had foretold to Peter
his martyrdom. Then asked Peter, concerning John,
" But what shall this man do? " Jesus answered, "If
I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ?
Follow thou Me." Then comes the notice by the
elders, " Jesus said not " — This disciple " shall not die ;
but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee." The elders therefore give no interpretation of
this remarkable saying. They merely t remind us of
what Christ had not said. He had spoken only con
ditionally: If I will. Still His language was that of
one who did entertain such a thought, and yet had
reason to withold a positive assertion. It was no
meaningless abstract assertion of a possibility which
no one would question. Nor was it solely a rebuke to-

LEGENDS AS TO S. JOHN'S RETURN. 347-
Peter. It evidently expressed a special purpose in
regard to John, although its literal understanding by
the disciples was erroneous. As to this the elders are
silent. Their addition to the Gospel was intended
merely to obviate the troubles created by the death of
the Apostle, not to give a full solution to the words of
Christ, which the Church should lay up in her heart.
And it is no wonder that the above idea as to the
destiny of John kept its ground in the Church. It re
appears in the form of two traditions, that John had
not really died, and that he had died and was risen
again. The former is reported by Augustine in his
224th Homily of the Gospel on John, not as giving
credence to it, but the reverse. Some, he says, assert,
that John descended into the grave, which he had
caused to be made for himself, seemed dead, and was
shut in — but that he had only fallen asleep, to awake
at the day of judgment, and that the earth of his grave
is lifted by the action of his breathing. On the other
hand, the Greek tradition is, that God immediately
after John's death raised him again, and keeps him,
that he may come in the last times to testify for the
truth, and along with Elias and Enoch to overcome
Antichrist, (Ephraim of Theopolis ap. Photion in My-
riobibl. cod. 229, p. 797, c. p. 800, b. c. Ed. 1653.)
This idea, which stands in evident connection with a
literal understanding of two well known texts in the
Apocalypse (Rev. x. 11 ; xi. 3), became very prevalent
among the later Greeks. Nay, it is expressed in their
ritual. And some Latin doctors, both of the middle
ages, and of the later times, have inclined to it.
Why do we cite these fancies of a period subsequent
to that of which we treat ? Because they are the last

34§ THE CHURCH LONGING FOR APOSTLES.
relics of an opinion as old as the Apostolic age. And
whence sprang this primitive tradition with all its off
sets ? From the persuasion of the Church, at the death
of John, that the apostolic office should be preserved to
the Church, in the last at least of those who possessed
it ; that the Church still needed it ; that it could not be
awanting at the end of the days ; that it had yet the
works to do, of conquering Antichrist, and of com
pleting the yet imperfect preparation of the faithful for
the coming again of Christ.*
A longing for the preservation of the peculiar bless
ing of apostleship is thus shewn to have been felt by the
primitive Church, and must have been increased by the
growing conviction that the internal progress of the
Church to perfection did not keep pace with its outward
extension. Widely as the Church extended under
Trajan, it betrayed a marked decay of its original light
and power, to which all that still remains from that
time, the writings of all the so called apostolic fathers,
bears sorrowful witness. So great is the difference
between their best productions and the apostolic
writings, that a glance at the respective worth and
contents of the two classes of documents is sufficient to
remove all uncertainty as to the boundary between
canonical and uncanonical Christian literature. The
subsequent experience of the Church confirms the
verdict of antiquity in this matter.
It is said that John, enfeebled by great age, being
* In short, that it was dormant, but not extinct. And it is a
coincidence to be observed, that Moses, who as lawgiver and leader
of the Jews, was a type ot apostleship, not only had a Joshua to
finish his work, but was buried by God, so that no man knew of
his sepulchre. (Deut. xxxiv. 6.) — Tr.

S. JOHN S LAST WORDS. 349.
carried into the meeting of the Church, merely re
peated the words, "My beloved children, love one
another." (Hieron. comm. ad. Galat. c. vi. p. ioo, d.)
This exhortation the Church laid to heart and followed,
as we may judge from the unity in which it lived during
the succeeding generation, being kept together, no
longer indeed by the Apostles, but by the love which
they had shed abroad in it, and by the careful obser
vance of what it had received from them. The heads
of the flocks felt themselves like orphans on the death
of Philip, Andrew, and John. But those orphans only
kept the closer together. Faithfulness to their trust,
reverence for tradition, was their motto. But, with all
this, no more could be preserved than what the Church,
as a whole, had really laid hold of and appropriated as
a part of her life. She could never thus ripen into
perfect maturity for the kingdom to come. That which
she lacked, from that time forward, was the progress
of that spiritual growth, which Peter, Paul, and John
had both exhibited and commenced.
Whether such a progress should again be seen, was
a question on which the Church had as little light as on
the duration of time which should elapse before she
should reach the goal of her race. We could not ex
pect to find any definite views among the teachers of
that time as to a future revival of a proper apostolic
action, unless it had been plain to them that centuries
should elapse before the second coming of the Lord.
The work of progressive building did stand still, even
as Hermas saw it in vision, that many might in the
interval have space for repentance. But no one could
guess the duration of the interval. It was not known,
that whole nations should stream into the Church, and

350 END OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
that a Christian family of peoples should take the lead
of the human race. The depth of the coming apostasy
within Christendom was very much hidden from the
eyes of the first fathers. And therefore it is not sur
prising that the ultimate deliverance from declension
and ruin, and a return to an apostolic condition, was
the object rather of their desire and indefinite pre
sentiment, than of their intelligent expectation and
endeavours.* * The true restoration, reformation, or perfecting of the Church,
lies, indeed, in a return to the unchangeable ways of God — but not
in a return to the condition of the Church at any given past time.
We serve the God of hope — not of mere memory — the living God,
who will answer us by deeds. Although there have been none to
jjuide the Church among all the sons whom she hath brought forth ;
although her way seemeth hid, and her judgment passed over from
her God ; yet shall she awake and stand up again, putting on her
strength and her beautiful garments, because her Maker is her
husband, and the marriage of the Lamb shall come. The Lord
regardeth the prayer of the destitute. His arm shall awake as in
the ancient days. He will turn His hand upon His people to purge
away their dross, restoring their judges as at the first, and their
counsellors as at the beginning. The sowers at the beginning, and
the reapers at the end, shall rejoice together. — Tr.

END.

INDEX.

Of the Books of the New Testament, and of the Primitive
Writings next to them.
Gospel by Matthew ... ... ... ... x(,g
 Mark ... .. ... ... 95
 Luke . . ... ... ... ^8
 John ... ... ... ... 247
Acts of Apostles, by Luke ... ... ... 77-91
Epistle of James, bishop of Jerusalem ... ... ior
—  Peter, First ... ... ... 190
 Second ... ... ... 196
 John, First... ... ... ... 238-247
 Second ... ... ... 263
 Third ... ... ... 267
 Jude ... ... ... ... ^7-236
 Paul to Romans ... ... ... 155-160
 Corinthians ... ... 112, 114, 134
 Galatians ... ... ... 116-121
 Ephesians ... ... ... 165
 Philippians ... ... ... 165
 Colossians ... ... ... 165
 Thessalonians... .. ... 131
 Timothy, First ... ... 140, 143
Second ... ... T40, J64

 Titus ... ... ... 143
 Philemon ... ... ... 165
 Hebrews ... ... ... 177
The Revelation of St. John .., ... ... 216

The Gospel of the Hebrews or Nazarenes ... ^2-293
 Egyptians ... ... ... 311
The Revelation of Peter ... ... ... 2T5
 Epistle.of Barnabas ... ... ... 310
 First Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinthians 268-2 70-323
Apocryphal writings under name of Clement of Rome 317
The Pastor of Hermas ... .. ... 325
 Epistles of Ignatius ... ... ... 299

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05130 3072

:'">¦¦.